Vote 1. Pay, etc., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines (Hansard, 15 March 1965)

§ M r. John Hay (Henley)
On a point of order, Dr. King. I wish to draw your attention to the fact that the Votes set down by the Government for debate today under the respective Service headings do not include Army Vote 10. The history of the matter, of course, is that the Government are entitled, Department by Department, to put down those Votes which will give them the appropriate amount of money which they will need by the end of the summer to carry on the respective Armed Services. The reason that I raise this with you as a point of order, Dr. King, is not that I expect that anything can be done about it today, but so that the point may be considered.
Army Vote 10 is the Vole on which the whole of the lands services of all the three Armed Services is now carried. The difficulty in which we are here is that, if the Army does not put down Vote 10 for debate, hon. Members on both sides 884 of the Committee cannot raise any matter relating to Services lands, whether they be Navy lands, Army lands, or Air Force lands. This puts all hon. Members under some disability, and I hope that you will consider the point and let us know whether there is any way in which we may be able, during the course of today, to debate lands matters which are on a Vote not actually put to the Committee.

§ The Chairman
I thought that the hon. Gentleman was answering his own point of order in his earlier remarks. The question of what Votes are put down for debate today is not one for the Chair. The Chair is not empowered either to comment on them or to change them. Any representations which the hon. Gentleman seeks to make he must make not to the Chair, but to the Government benches in some other way.
If I may answer the question which the hon. Gentleman asked at the end of his remarks, it will not be in order to discuss Vote 10 (Lands) today.

§ Mr. Hay
I expected that that might be your view on the matter, Dr. King. If I may now turn to Navy Vote 1, the Vote which you have called, I simply say by way of preliminary that I hope that what I have said, which is said not on behalf of myself or this side only, but on behalf of all hon. Members now and in the future, will be considered by the Government. The whole Committee is put in a difficulty.

§ The Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Christopher Mayhew)
I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, but he will understand that the question of which Navy Votes, for example, come forward is one for the Government to decide on a rather complicated formula so as to get our Vote on Account. The effect of putting in Navy lands would be to omit some other aspect of the Navy Votes even if such an arrangement could be come to.

§ Mr. Hay
I am much obliged, but the trouble is that we cannot put in Navy lands. The trouble is that lands for the three Services, Navy and Air Force as well as the Army, are now on Army Vote 10. This means that, unless Army Vote 10 is put down year by year, we do not have an opportunity to debate lands for any of the three Services, and, 885 depending entirely on whether the Army needs the allocation which is represented by Vote 10, hon. Members may have no opportunity to debate the matter.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. G. W. Reynolds)
Is not the hon. Gentleman being rather theoretical? Does he really think that we should reach Army Vote 10 by ten o'clock tonight?

§ Mr. Hay
As usual, the hon. Gentleman has not looked at the Order Paper. He does not even know what Votes are down. In fact, he has not put down Army Vote 10.

§ Mr. Reynolds
But would we reach it?

§ Mr. Hay
Yes, I am sure that we should, because hon. Members would wish to debate these matters. But I leave that point now and pass to Navy Vote 1.
Vote 1 is the Vote on which the whole question of naval manpower can be discussed, and much of our debate last week revolved around this very crucial matter. I ask the Minister, first, since we are principally concerned with this vote on manpower, whether he would be kind enough to confirm that the Navy is not faced with an overall and general manpower shortage. As I understand the position, it is that the Navy faces shortages of skilled manpower in certain limited areas. It would be helpful not only to the Committee, but to the country as a whole if the individual areas where shortages exist could be identified. Perhaps that could be done in the course of the reply to the debate.
One of the most important matters involved in the whole question of manpower is re-engagement. I hope that the Under-Secretary can clear up a difficulty which has existed here. Paragraph III of the White Paper says that the proportion of Royal Navy ratings who re-engage on completion of their 12-year engagements is about 52 per cent., and a contrast is made between that figure and 54 per cent. for 1963 and 65 per cent. for 1959.
But when winding up the debate on the Navy Estimates on 11th March the Under-Secretary, in col. 798, used the 886 figure of 40 per cent., and in answer to questions indicated that the 40 per cent. drop in the re-engagament rate was the average right through all types of engagements, whereas the 52 per cent. shown in the White Paper was only for men on 12-year engagements. If this is so, it is a somewhat alarming situation.
I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary—I know the difficulties about making a winding-up speech of this kind—would say whether or not the average naval re-engagement rate has fallen to 40 per cent. If so, it makes even more necessary not only the actions which the Government are already contemplating, which the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy announced in his speech last week, but also any other ideas which one can bring forward which might help.
Next, I turn to two matters which the Minister raised. First, there is the engagement bounty or grant. I am not quite sure what it is intended to call it. There are one or two questions on this. The Minister said that this was to be given to skilled and semi-skilled E.R.As., weapon and electrical artificers, radio artificers and mechanicians, electrical mechanics and radio mechanics. He then told the Committee that the E.R.As. and the mechanicians were to get a grant or bounty of £375 on re-engagement, whereas the remainder would get £750. If that is so, why is there this differentiation between the E.R.As. and the mechanicians on the one hand, and the remainder?
Secondly, the Minister told us that this grant or bounty is to be taxable. I see the fine Italian hand of the Treasury again in this. I hope that the Minister will fight hard, if there is still room for fighting on this, because if the Navy's need is urgent and if the figure of re-engagement is as low as 40 per cent. and if it is in these specialist categories, as I suspect, that the trouble lies, I wonder whether these amounts subject to tax will produce the results for which Ministers hope. I hope that we can have a little more information about that.
I would ask the Minister of State also to clear up what seemed to be an ambiguity in his announcement. I refer to what he said on 11th March, in col. 654 of the OFFICIAL REPORT: We propose that ratings in these categories"— 887 I have just mentioned what they are— who sign on before their first engagement of nine or 12 years for 22 years' service shall be paid a taxable re-engagement grant."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1965; Vol. 708, c. 654.] It seemed to me a little ambiguous, a bit of a contradiction in terms, that a man should sign on before his nine or 12-year engagement for 22 years. Perhaps the Minister will clear this up. Perhaps he will do it later, at the end of the debate, rather than by an interjection now. If there is a misunderstanding or ambiguity, I should be glad if he could clear it up.

§ Mr. Mayhew
It might be easier—there is nothing between us—if I tried to explain it now. As things stand a man does not have to wait until his nine years are up before signing again for 22 years for pension. This is a good thing. He makes up his mind, say, when seven years have gone that he will re-engage at the end of nine years. We want to encourage that. So what we say is that when a man signs on for 22 years when he is, say, at seven years we will pay him 10 per cent. of his re-engagement bounty, and then he gets the rest of the bounty at the nine-year period.

§ Mr. Hay
I am very much obliged, and I am sure that the whole Committee is. That clears the point up.
Another matter is the question of the house purchase scheme, which was announced last week. Here I return to the charge. I hope that over the weekend the hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity of thinking again about the question of delay. The hon. Gentleman told us last week that the house purchase scheme for ratings who re-engage is to be delayed until such time as a similar scheme for the Civil Service is cut and dried. I urged in my speech that there should be no delay about this, that the Navy's needs are urgent and should take precedence, if necessary, over the Civil Service. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could tell us in a little more detail exactly why the delay is necessary and the details of the scheme and what has happened in the Civil Service that requires everybody else to mark time until it gets to the appropriate point. 888 I turn to the more general aspects of manpower. I would ask whether all the other possibilities of dealing with naval manpower shortage have been fully examined. There is one aspect, in particular, that I should like to raise. The Under-Secretary and I and many other hon. Members served in the Navy during the war and recollect very well the excellent—indeed, splendid—service that was given by the W.R.N.S. and how customary it was to see a W.R.N.S., who had apparently had quite a little training, able to handle the most complicated machinery and repair the most complicated equipment.
I wonder whether Ministers have considered making better use of W.R.N.S. to take the place of some of the trained qualified men in the shortage categories for maintenance of equipment on shore and possibly to go out to ships when they come in for refitting. One of the big problems in regard to the shortage categories is the maintenance of the equipment. I wonder whether all the various ingenious possibilities which I am sure exist for the use of W.R.N.S., with special training perhaps, have been fully explored. I should be grateful if that point could be borne in mind.
There is also, clearly, a need for an improved recruitment rate for the Wrens. Paragraph 122 of the White Paper gives us the details about W.R.N.S. recruitment. It says that there is an authorised number of about 3,000 W.R.N.S. ratings and that 1,000 enrolments are needed each year. It tells us that the minimum age has now been lowered to 17. I hope that the Government will give thought to this point. I think it possible that W.R.N.S. might make a much larger contribution in helping the Navy in this field. If I might ride a little hobby horse of mine, I hope that those who are responsible for it will again look at the possibility of improving the W.R.N.S. uniform.
It has always seemed to me that the W.R.N.S. uniform was something of a disincentive to girls to join the W.R.N.S. I have always felt that the heavy serge from which their uniforms are made and their somewhat unattractive caps must act as a disincentive. I do not suggest that this should be taken as a precedent, but I ask Ministers to look at some of the excellent results that have been obtained by some of the airlines in finding 889 suitable and attractive uniforms for the stewardesses. I am not suggesting that the W.R.N.S. should look like airline hostesses—that is not my intention. All I am saying is that I hope very much that, in considering the question of W.R.N.S. uniforms, Ministers will consider the experiments which have been carried out by the civil airlines, because some remarkable results have been obtained.

§ Commander Harry Pursey (Kingston upon Hull, East)
Is not recruiting for the W.R.N.S. already at a high rate? If so, how can the hon. Gentleman argue that uniform is a disincentive? I am not arguing whether it is or not. The hon. Gentleman then made the point about dressing them up as airline hostesses.

§ Mr. Hay
indicated dissent.

§ Commander Pursey
Very well. He drew attention to the uniforms of airline hostesses. Is not that one of the reasons why the marriage rate is very high among airline hostesses? Consequently, if we were to dress up the W.R.N.S. as platinum blondes, we would lose them almost as soon as we got them.

§ Mr. Hay
I suppose that if the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member could be translated into the jargon, he would say that my suggestion was likely to be counter-productive. In answer to his first point, he has misunderstood. I am saying that having regard to the shortages in the various skilled categories that exist in the Navy for men, there might well be a case for trying to recruit more W.R.N.S. and training them to carry out some at least of the duties that these skilled men, who are so scarce, at present carry out. That is all I am saying. For the rest, I must leave the hon. and gallant Member to read in the OFFICIAL REPORT what I have said.
I turn next to aircrew. We touched upon this last week, but I should like to ask the Government, with reference to paragraph 97 of the White Paper, whether they had been able to ascertain exactly why a large number of aircrew officers on the Supplementary List are exercising their option to leave the Service at the various break points during their commission. What investigations have been carried out to find why these 890 officers are taking this action? If I recollect aright, investigations were started during the time when I was at the Ministry. I should like to know what progress has been made and what the results are.
I turn from individual shortages to the question of the General Service commission. Last year, a number of alterations were made to this. The length of the commission was increased to two and a half years to fit in with the refit cycle, but there was the qualification that the maximum continuous period which a man should serve overseas should be kept, as far as humanly possible, to 12 months. At the same time, we adopted a new system of trying to recommission ships in stages grouped around the refit, because it is no longer realistic to change the whole of a ship's company at one time.
I should like to know from the Under-Secretary how the change in the General Service commission has been received throughout the Fleet. I know that there was a certain amount of anxiety on the part of the old Board of Admiralty when we considered this matter, but I should like to know whether it is working well and whether the explanations have now been fully understood and received in the Fleet.
Whilst on this subject, I might, perhaps, make a further plea, if it is necessary, that much further use should be made of air trooping flights to enable ships to recommission abroad, particularly in the Far East. A certain amount of work of that kind has been done, but I believe that much more could be done and I hope very much that the point is in the mind of the Ministers.
Finally, I turn to the question of Polaris. We have not yet heard from the Government during our debates the reasons which have caused them to decide on a four-boat rather than a five-boat fleet for Polaris. I should like to know whether the decision has been taken because of manpower difficulties. Much as I should like to range over the whole of this field, I have to bear in mind that we are discussing Vote 1, which relates to the pay and allowances, and so on, of the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. I should, however, like to ask that question to begin with.
891 It would seem that possibly manpower has played a potent part in the decision. Certainly, there is little reason to imagine that on grounds of effectiveness a four-boat Polaris fleet—I welcome the arrival of the Secretary of State for Defence at an appropriate moment. For his benefit, I will tell him that I was asking whether the reason for the reduction of the Polaris fleet from five boats to four is basically manpower. I can understand that manpower may have an important part to play, but we have wondered whether the decision was one of money, whether it was because the party opposite have come to different strategic ideas than those which governed our decision to have a five-boat fleet, or whether it was something else.
Neither the Secretary of State nor the Minister, nor even the Under-Secretary, in the debates last week answered question which I put about a four-or five-boat fleet. I hope that—strictly in the context of manpower, of course, to keep ourselves in order—we can have an explanation of this point.
Although we welcome the decision to carry on with the Polaris programme, it looks like a rather dirty carbon copy of Conservative policy. We would prefer the Government to have kept to what we originally planned.

§ The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey)
The hon. Gentleman's Government originally planned to have four Polaris vessels.

§ Mr. Hay
That is true. Then, having planned the whole thing—and the Government are very keen on reviews—we came to the conclusion, for the reasons which I gave last week, that a five-boat fleet was infinitely preferable. I should like to know why there has been a change and why this retrograde step has been taken. Is it due to manpower?
I come next to the training of Polaris crews. Can the Under-Secretary tell us how the training of these crews is going on? The Minister has been in America and has seen the training of crews at Dam Neck, which I had the opportunity to see some time ago. I should like to know how the training of the first crews is proceeding and what arrangements are in prospect for the training of the subsequent crews when the first two crews are 892 trained in America. Is the programme of building for our training at Faslane continuing? Are there any checks or difficulties? The Committee would be glad to know.
I should like to make one final point about Polaris with particular reference to the base at Faslane. I hope that Ministers have hoisted in the idea that it is essential, if the Polaris fleet is to operate successfully and do the job for which it is provided, that the men who make up the crews of each of these submarines should have peace of mind. This was certainly very much in our minds when we made the original plans.
Arrangements have to be made at the base for the housing and welfare of the men's families, the education of their children and medical attention for them, such as to reach a very high degree so that the men who are at sea for, perhaps, a month or even more can be relieved as far as possible of the anxiety which they would otherwise have, because this is—

§ Mr. Hay
May I finish the sentence—a very important thing, as, I am sure, the Under-Secretary has already been advised.

§ Mr. John Rankin (Glasgow, Govan)
Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that people who live in the neighbourhood of Faslane should have peace of mind, too?

§ Mr. Hay
As far as I know, they will have, as will all the people in this country once the party opposite has fully endorsed and carried into action the Polaris programme.

§ The Chairman
I have been listening to the hon. Member very carefully. He must keep to the narrow point that he has raised.

§ Mr. Hay
I was obviously led astray by one who has experience in doing that.
However, that is really all I want to say about Polaris.

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes
I have followed the hon. Member with great interest. He was asking about training facilities for the manpower for the Polaris submarine. Could he explain the statement he made when he was Minister? He forgot about the training school.

§ Mr. Hay
No. I do not think that I did. Offhand, I do not remember everything I said in my speech on the Navy Estimates last year, but as one who had some responsibility for this aspect of the programme—and I see that the Under-Secretary of State has fitted into the same position—it was one of the things very much in my mind.

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes
The hon. Gentleman did not tell us.

§ Mr. Hay
Maybe. Perhaps I was not asked.
We would welcome further information from Ministers about the manpower situation, which does not appear too good, but I hope that at the same time they will be able to assure us that the essential work which the Fleet is doing now is not jeopardised or damaged to a dangerous degree by these shortages. Any information we can have about manpower shortages and the actions the Government intend to put them right will be very much welcomed by this side of the Committee.

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)
I was just looking round to find out whether there were any reinforcements for me coming up from behind. I should like to follow up the question about manpower to be trained for the Polaris submarine. I do so because I took part in an Adjournment debate which the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) will remember.
When the Polaris submarine base was first announced in the House of Commons it was said that it would cost between £20 million and £25 million. I thought that this was a considerable amount of public money. I succeeded in getting an Adjournment debate and in it I asked what, I thought, were very pertinent questions, which the hon. Member for Henley did his best to answer. Then, when the present Government came in, and we asked about the costs of training facilities for this manpower, the figure had gone up from £25 million to £45 million.
When an amount of that kind, and an increase of that kind, which is a considerable sum, is to be spent we should have an opportunity of debating it, so I continued my inquiries about the £45 894 million. The hon. Gentleman said that he had it very much in mind, but it is not what is in the hon. Member's mind which should interest the Committee, but what we are to be asked to budget for. We know that the cost of these training facilities for the future manpower amounts to £10 million more than we were informed of. It is a considerable amount.
The present Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy referred to the matter. He interrupted my speech on the Estimates, and I want to do both him and the Admiralty full justice by repeating what he said: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish unwittingly to mislead the Committee about the two figures £25 million and £45 million. The £25 million does not include, for example, to take only one item, the training school, because at that time it had not been decided to put the training school at Faslane. That accounts for £9 million of the difference. The other matters are equally decisions taken after the figure of £25 million was given and not pure escalation, although I do not say that is no element of escalation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1965; Vol. 708, c. 708.] In this we are told that, in addition to the cost of the base, there is £9 million that we were not told about at all. It was only by acting as an amateur Sherlock Holmes on these Estimates that I discovered this at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I represent the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I want to know how the manpower is to be trained and I should like to know something more about this £9 million and the training school. A training school which costs £9 million is an expensive item, nearly the cost of a Scottish university, certainly the cost of quite a number of large secondary schools, which, we are told, we cannot afford.
I should like to know what will happen to the present submarine crews. What is to happen to them? Are they to be sent for refresher courses to Faslane? Would my hon. Friend tell us what a refresher course is likley to consist of? I understand—I am speaking purely as a layman in this matter—that the ordinary manpower of the ordinary submarine will not be qualified to undertake duties in a Polaris submarine.
Is this expensive establishment to take our technologists and teachers? Are we to have teachers and technologists drawn 895 from the educational system in Scotland? Because I can assure him that if he is to recruit mathematicians and scientists and technologists, and potential recruits to teaching, who are so badly needed in the technical colleges in the west of Scotland, there will be an outcry from everybody interested in education in Scotland.
I feel alarmed when I see an item of expenditure increasing by £10 million—for the training school, which was in the Minister's mind, but was not revealed to the House of Commons. I therefore wonder whether there are any more £10 million schemes in the Minister's mind which have not been revealed to the House. After all, we have to find the money. I make the prophecy now that the estimated cost for this training school will not be enough by the time it has been completed in 1968. I suggest that here there is, and will be, escalation and I look with alarm at the possibility of this large expenditure mounting and mounting till by the time the first Polaris submarine sails from the Gare Loch—when, probably, it will be obsolete in any case—we shall have incurred an enormous amount of public expenditure.
I believe I was doing the right thing in putting up this red light—or red warning light, or whatever it is that they call it in the Navy. This activity on the Gare Loch will be watched very carefully by everybody interested in manpower of all kinds in the west of Scotland, because we need manpower for our construction industries, and we need money for houses and schools and hospitals.
We are very jealous indeed about this money and this manpower being taken away for what we believe is likely to be an expensive venture which will not result in contributing anything to our national economy.

§ Dame Joan Vickers (Plymouth, Devonport)
I wish to refer particularly to Subhead C, which refers to other ranks of Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service. Why has there been a cut of £19,000, particularly in view of the fact that this Service is doing excellent work at present in co-ordinating 896 not only the Services, but civilians in their hospitals, to which I shall refer on another Vote?
The W.R.N.S. have also done a first-class job, and they do not seem to have any difficulty in recruiting personnel, but why should not they have other jobs in shore establishments, such as cooks, stewards, and chauffeurs? At the moment these jobs are performed by men. Ministers have women chauffeurs, and I am sure that they appreciate that they are excellent drivers. I think that women could be used in many more clerical jobs in shore establishments.
I agree with what the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) said the other day about H.M.S. "Dauntless". I do not understand why it is at Burghfield. I think that it would be better if it were nearer a naval establishment, so that the personnel there could get the right atmosphere at the time of their recruitment.
I should also like to know whether it would be possible to recruit W.R.N.S. from the age of 16, which is the normal age for girls who are not going to university to leave school. These are the people who could come into the Service as cooks, chauffeurs, clerical workers and so on. This gap between 16 and 17 is very difficult to fill, and the opportunity to enlist in the W.R.N.S. would be a great help.
I note that under Subhead D (6) there is to be a cut of £25,000. It is very difficult to understand the purpose of this Vote, and perhaps the Minister will be able to explain it.
I should like to di0scuss whether the Minister will have too much money to pay the number of personnel that he may have in the Services. I propose to write to the Minister concerning several points of recruiting.
I should like next to deal with the difficulties experienced by wives, a topic not discussed during the Estimates debate. It has to be realised that since the war there has been an increase of2½ per cent. in the number of teen-age wives, and there is a difficulty about centralised drafting. I realise the difficulties in the W.R.N.S. and that it may not be possible to alter the situation, but the Minister must realise that in the old 897 days people used to be allocated to one area. They were at Devonport, Portsmouth, or Chatham, and they had their relatives in the neighbourhood. That is not so now, and this causes great difficulty for many of these young wives.
One wife whom I met recently told me that she had had 15 major moves in 23 years. This makes for a great deal of unsettlement in the family itself, and I should like the Minister to consider more carefully this question of drafting. I am told that one of the difficulties is that wives do not know for how long their husbands may be away. Even if they could be given some estimate of the length of separation, it would be a great asset.
The other difficulty is that when a husband is in the United Kingdom he may be in Scotland while his wife may be in Devonport, or Portsmouth, and yet his service is regarded as shore service. The members of the family may be no nearer to each other than if the husband were on a ship at sea, or in Singapore. This central drafting causes great difficulties, and the loans for houses scheme will not help unless the wives know the ports to which their husbands are likely to return. Unless they have this information, they have no idea where to settle.
I deal next with re-engagement. There seem to be many inequalities. If an E.R.A. wishes to re-engage, he gets a bonus of £375. If a C.P.O. wants to re-engage, he gets £100, if he is going to H.M.S. "Sultan" for three months to become an E.R.A. The difference between £375 and £100 seems rather too much. If a man is willing to get himself qualified for a higher grade, he should be paid the same re-engagement sum as the E.R.A. himself.
I propose now to discuss the postal services. I have been in touch with the right hon. Gentleman, because I understand that postal services for the Navy have been taken over by the Army. Since this has happened there has been great dissatisfaction with the service. Many delays have occurred in the post. I have already done battle with the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will take up this extremely important matter because, if husbands and wives are parted, it is a great asset if they are able to communciate with each other as rapidly as possible.
898 Only recently a wife was taken ill. She wrote to her husband to tell him about it. The letter never arrived, and eventually the husband was informed by cable of his wife's illness. This is a great disadvantage. I will give the hon. Gentleman full details in writing, and I hope that he will take this matter seriously, because postal delays are a major issue.
During the debate on Thursday we talked about an allowance for men when they went to sea. I hope that the Minister will not consider this at all. After all, if a man joins the Navy, he is expected to go to sea. What is needed is a separation allowance for the wife. Many wives have two, three, or even four children, and they need an occasional day off. If they could afford to pay a home help, or someone else, to look after their children while they went out, or perhaps even while they went to visit their husbands in Scotland this would be a tremendous advantage to them. Please do not pay men for extra service at sea. If help is to be given, the money should be given to the wife, because if it is given to the husband the chances are that the wife will not benefit at all.
For many years I have pleaded for unfurnished accommodation to be provided in naval quarters. Many people, when they are in naval accommodation, have to pay for their furniture to be stored. Time and again I have been told that the difficulty about providing unfurnished accommodation is that the furniture installed by the occupants leaves marks on the walls, but surely if a family has been in a house for, say, three years, the house needs redecorating anyway. The provision of unfurnished accommodation would be a great asset, because the occupants would not only avoid having to pay for their furniture to be stored, but would be able to display their own ornaments and use their own furniture, rather than use that provided by the Ministry of Public Building and Works.
One of the factors against recruiting is the number of chores which have to be done in the Navy. For years I fought for a zip fastener on the jumper and a plastic cap. Now I suggest that we should provide a drip-dry collar. If a lovely crease is required, this can be put in by machine. It is an unnecessary chore for the ordinary sailor to have to iron these 899 collars. If he were provided with a drip-dry collar, there would be one less chore for him to do.

§ Commander Pursey
Will not the hon. Lady take up the far more important point—especially from a woman's point of view—of how to prevent the blue of the collar running into the three rows of white tape? If she can find an answer to that, she will make a fortune.

§ Dame Joan Vickers
As I understand it, drip-dry material does not run from one colour into another. I am sure that this would solve the hon. and gallant Member's problem. It would be an additional asset.
I feel that we ought to increase the number of Commonwealth people in our Royal Navy. Goans used to cook in the galleys, and we also had Hong Kong Chinese. I know that many people in the West Indies, as well as in other parts of the Commonwealth, would like to enter the Navy, and I hope that further recruitment will be made from among them. I have been to various Commonwealth territories and I know that many people would come in from them. When I was in Nigeria many people volunteered for the Nigerian Navy, but they could not all be accepted.
I now turn to the question of sea cadets. Their numbers are falling. One of the difficulties is that they do not have enough opportunities of going to sea. I have a Question down to the Minister on this subject—

§ The Chairman
I am distressed at having to interrupt the hon. Lady, but sea cadets come under Vote 2.

§ Dame Joan Vickers
I was merely mentioning them as part of the problem of recruitment. That is the only reason I referred to them. The more young people we can get into the sea cadets the more are likely to join the Navy later.
But if we are to get more recruits it is absolutely essential that we provide the right home conditions. Most people in the Navy marry at an early age in these days, and unless we can obtain the co-operation of the wives and provide proper living conditions for them and their families we shall not be able to look forward to better recruiting figures in the future.

§ Mr. Ted Leadbitter (The Hartlepools)
I have listened very patiently and keenly to what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) has had to say, especially about the Women's Royal Naval Service. When we are dealing with Vote 1 it is proper to give specific attention to matters dealing with people. The other day when we were debating Vote A there was a temptation to deviate somewhat, and to go into questions of policy. On Vote 1, however, we are bound to consider manpower, and particularly Royal Navy personnel.
We must examine this part of the Estimates to see whether or not we are writing into it provisions which will, first, provide adequately for the needs of the moment and, secondly, produce incentives for recruiting in the right places and deal with difficulties and shortages in various parts of the Service. The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) referred particularly to the possibility of the W.R.N.S. filling some of the men's vacancies.
I want to deal particularly with the question of overseas allowances and education allowances, which are referred to in Vote 1, Subhead B, (3) and (4), in respect of officers, and Subhead D, (3) and (4), in respect of ratings and other ranks. During the past two years there has been an average increase of about 2,000 in the Royal Navy establishment. In the total provision for the Services there has been allowance for an increase of 1,000 men—from 103,000 to 104,000.
It is, therefore, surprising to find that under the two allowances that I have mentioned there has been only an 8 per cent. increase in respect of officers and an 18 per cent. increase in respect of ratings. When we were discussing the Royal Air Force the other day I mentioned the question of allowances, and in this case, too, we should have an explanation from the Minister about them. I am not satisfied that they are adequate.
If we want to build up the strength of our naval forces, and if there are signs that recruitment is improving considerably, we should have something far better than this in the Estimates. I am mainly perturbed about education. In the total Estimates we have an increase of £56½ million, but under the heading of education we have the very small amount of 901 £20,000 for officers. A movement from £495,000 to £475,000 is hardly the kind of increase which is likely to satisfy me, without some sort of explanation—

§ Mr. Hay
Has not the hon. Member got it the wrong way round? Was it not £495,000 last year as compared to £475,000 this; in other words, a reduction, and not an increase, of £20,000?

§ Mr. Leadbitter
Yes. That was an error on my part. It is certainly a decrease. It is a 4 per cent. decrease. This somewhat alarms me.
For ratings, the education allowance has remained stationary at £40,000. This does not seem to be right for a vital part of the Service which involves the interests of families of naval personnel. I hope that the Minister will indicate what attention has been paid to this matter.
Considering the total Estimates of £544 million as a background to the fact that we have an increase in Vote 1 of only £2,833,000, our provision for education and overseas allowances appear meagre in the extreme. As a new Member I respectfully ask the Committee to bear with me on this point when I appeal to the Minister to explain this situation. I do this purely out of concern for personnel.

§ Mr. Ian Fraser (Plymouth, Sutton)
I want to relate my remarks to Vote 9, Subheads A and B—

§ The Chairman
Order. We shall be discussing Vote 9 later. The hon. Member will have his chance when we reach it.

§ Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby (Dorset, West)
I do not wish to keep the Committee for more than a few moments, because I think that there will be matters of greater interest arising on later Votes. I wish to refer briefly to the problem of recruiting and re-engagement. It has been discussed at some length during earlier stages of the debates on the Estimates. To me, it is rather disappointing to find that the Navy which, in the days not long ago, made the best showing in both these respects, is now making the worst showing compared with the other two Services. I wonder whether the explanation to which we have listened represents the whole story, of whether the matter goes a little further.
One explanation dealt with in the White Paper refers to the increased proportion of the Fleet now in the Far East. We 902 know that policy is to continue and it may well be that there is something in that explanation. I cannot help wondering whether it may have something to do with the virtual abandonment of the old idea of manning ports. I hope that the Minister will look into the matter further. For a long time it was much easier to recruit for the Royal Navy than it is today. Explanations about married quarters, which only started to be built after the last war, do not provide a very good reason, in my opinion.
I wish to inquire—if it will not embarrass the Minister—about the extent to which Polaris and the hunter-killer programmes are already making calls on manpower. How much of a problem arises from this and how much is the situation due to other manning problems?
According to Subhead B(2) there has been quite a sharp increase, amounting to £45,000 in the lodging and London allowances. I hope that does not mean that there are more people in London than there used to be.
Subhead Z, relating to appropriations in aid, indicates, I am glad to see, that there is £228,000 more coming in than before. By the same token it means that more naval manpower is being lent. As I understand Subhead (1) it means that we have considerably more people on loan to other Governments and I should like an explanation of that. Does it mean that they are on loan to new self-governing territories, or what is the explanation?
When we come to the other receipts there is not much difference in the figures and yet we find, looking through the Defence White Paper, that stress is laid on the extent to which overseas officers, and indeed ratings as well, are taking part in our British Naval courses. Presumably there will be a higher proportion of these officers. I wonder whether they are being charged with the expense of the courses. If the courses are being taken up by these people I wonder whether it is right to go on giving free instruction, if that is a correct deduction to make from Subhead Z(3). Perhaps I may be told something about that.

§ Mr. Humphrey Atkins (Merton and Morden)
I should like the Minister to explain Subhead C. It appears to me that there are four categories relating to the pay of ratings. Subhead A(1) deals 903 with the pay of naval ratings and Royal Marine other ranks. The amount has been increased from £49,581,000 to £50,330,000. I should like to know why that is. Either there are more ratings, or they are being paid more, and I do not think that either of those reasons is correct.
I recollect that the last pay increase for the Royal Navy came into force on 1st April, 1964. For the actual numbers to be paid I look, as I am recommended to do by the Estimates, to Appendix II, Table II, for the average numbers borne during 1964–65 and 1965–66. If the Minister will do the same, and he will do a little arithmetic, I think that he will agree that it is estimated there are fewer naval ratings and Royal Marine other ranks, according to his own figures, this year than last.

§ Mr. Atkins
I see that the Minister shakes his head, but perhaps he would add up the figures. I have added them up and it appears to me that there are fewer—not many fewer, but certainly some fewer—ratings and Royal Marine other ranks this year than last year. If that is so, why should we pay them more?
My second question has been raised in relation to the Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service, where the reverse applies. More nursing auxiliaries are to be paid a great deal less. This does not make sense to me. The figures for the W.R.N.S. appear to work the right way round. There are more ratings to be paid slightly more. I should like the Minister to explain. If the answer is that National Insurance contributions have increased, it would appear that they have gone up to nearly 30 per cent. Why should that be? It is in respect of slightly fewer ratings. I know that the Government put up National Insurance contributions recently, but not, I think, to as much as that.
I should be grateful if the Minister would explain why we are being asked to pay these sums of money which do not appear, on the face of it, to accord with the facts.

§ Captain Walter Elliot (Carshalton)
I apologise for missing the opening part of the debate, which was unavoidable. I hope that the point which I wish to make has not already been raised. In the Defence White Paper we were given a total Estimate and there was a slightly sinister paragraph at the end to the effect that Supplementary Estimates referring to aircraft would be presented in due course. When we look at Vote 1 we realise that it is unrealistic, because we know very well that in due course a Supplementary Estimate will be produced, as this is the year when the biennial review of the pay of the Services take place. To avoid having to rise again when Votes 4 and 5 are discussed, may I mention, in passing, that this affects those Votes, also?
I wonder whether the Minister can say whether any calculations have been made about what the wages and salaries bill—which represents the greater part of the Estimates—will be and the Supplementary Estimates which will be presented during the year as a result of the biennial review.

§ Commander Anthony Courtney (Harrow, East)
I wish to make two points in connection with the serious shortage of flying personnel, which is mentioned with some force in paragraph 97 of the White Paper, and which was referred to in a number of speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee during the debate last Thursday.
I note that in Vote 1, Subhead B (5), other allowances and grants have gone up by £43,000 this year. I wish to ask what, if any, proportion of that total is covered by flying allowances, that is specific—what we would have called in the old days non-substantive—allowances paid to flying personnel. I believe that a scheme of non-substantive pay in direct proportion to the lack of recruits, or shall we say lack of re-engagers, among flying officers will have to be part of the Minister's programme if we are to rectify this rather grave shortage.
I should like to ask one further short question. Do Subheads A and C include the pay of cross-posted officers from the Royal Air Force to the Royal Navy? I understand that, at the moment, there 905 is a very small number of cross-postings between Services—I believe mainly among flying personnel. If the integration of the Services is to mean anything at all, would it not be right that, when we reach a situation such as we have in this year's White Paper, by which one Service, in this case the Navy, is very short of flying personnel, and another Service, the Royal Air Force, is fairly well-off—I would not say that it is flush, but it is in a much better position—the cross-posting which already takes place should not be increased disproportionately, so that the Royal Navy gets an extra number of R.A.F. personnel?
I put these two suggestions as one way, perhaps, of immediately alleviating this increasingly serious situation.

§ Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu
So far as one of the questions asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney) is concerned, I shall have to say that I shall write to him about it. That is the question of the flying allowance. I do not know the answer. That must apply to some of the other detailed questions which have been put during this debate. I will answer as many as I can as fully as I can, but where I cannot do so I promise hon. Members that I shall write to them in detail, and accurately, at the earliest possible moment.
The shortages which are afflicting some parts of the Services at present are serious, but not fatal. I am, unhappily, afraid that I was right in the debate last Thursday in the average figure of re-engagement which I gave. It is disturbing. It is an average of the two main types of re-engagement, and it is exactly as I have stated. It makes it all the more necessary for us to do everything we can, by these re-engagement bounties and other means, to try to remedy a situation which is disturbing.
The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) asked whether we could give a little more information about where the shortages are most felt. I mentioned a number in my speech on Thursday, and so did my right hon. Friend, but here are one or two more. Electrical artificers, for example, are at present running at a shortage of about 15 per cent. The same 15 per cent. shortage applies also to radio 906 artificers and to leading radio mechanics. There are lesser shortages of 5 per cent. for ordnance and weapon artificers. and so on. This is a very uneven position. S.B.A.s, I believe, are in the worst position of all at present. There is a very high degree of shortage there.
That is one of the reasons why we propose to have variations in the amount of re-engagement bounties which we pay. It seems sensible to pay more where the shortages are more acute—to use it as a sort of regulator. I think that that is far and away the best way of doing it. I was, at one stage—

§ Mr. Hay
Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, may I say that I understood, of course, that that might be the reason, but if we start introducing a system of differentiation in payments of this kind we may well create a very undesirable situation. Two men—in different categories, it is true—might be working practically side by side, one knowing that his re-engagement pay or bounty or grant will be a certain amount, and the other knowing that his re-engagement grant may be virtually double that amount. I suggest that that is something which could well cause trouble. I hope that Ministers will look at this again.

§ Mr. Mallalieu
I cannot pretend that I am entirely happy about the arrangement, but, at the moment, this seems the most effective way to use the money which we will have available. Of course, grants for housing will be the same for everyone. This variation will only apply to the re-engagement bounty. I am not very happy about it. We shall certainly watch it extremely carefully.
I was very glad that the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) was called. I was distressed that she was not called to speak on Thursday, after having waited so long. She and the hon. Member for Henley raised various matters connected with the W.R.N.S. I was beginning to get a little disturbed about what sort of service we were being asked to run, and whether we were being asked to make them into dazzling blondes. The serious point was, could we not make greater use of the W.R.N.S. in the Service than we do at present. There are two difficulties, one of which is conclusive. One difficulty is that we have to get a ratio of shore to 907 sea complementing, so that people who have done their sea time can have a shore billet. It would be difficult to allot many more shore billets to W.R.N.S.
There is a much more serious problem. The average time which a W.R.N.S. spends in the Service is about three years. The length of time it takes to train people in to some of these skilled categories is five years. It would, therefore, mean that, just when they were three-fifths of their way through their training, they would get married and leave. That would obviously be absurd.

§ Commander Pursey
We want to get this clear and apply some common sense to it. This is not a question of training W.R.N.S. up to the level of artificers. It is simply a question of their being "tiffys' mates" to carry the tools and help the expert and do the secondary work. We would not want that amount of time simply to train a "tiffy's mate".

§ Mr. Mallalieu
Of course not, but I did not think that that was the point. I thought that it was being said that they did such wonderful work during the war, and learned skills, that they should be called upon to replace more of the higher skilled men, of whom, we were disturbed—

§ Dame Joan Vickers
It was not really the replacement of higher skilled men in those establishments which I had in mind. Men are stewards and cooks, and so on, and many officers have men drivers. Surely it would not take a long time to teach a woman to wait at table or to drive a car.

§ Mr. Mallalieu
It would be comparatively easy, but, even for stewards, the question of a shoreward billet arises from time to time. We can do something on these lines, but I would not hold out hopes that there would be any great advance. We are trying out something in a small way by having W.R.N.S. on various jobs in air traffic control.
On the question of the W.R.N.S. uniform, I rather agree about the hat. It is not particularly attractive. But the rest of the uniform is absolutely smashing. I think that they look far and away the best of all the three Services. We might have a look at what could be done about the hat, or cap, or whatever it is called.
908 On the question of the assisted house purchase scheme, I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Henley say that we should get on with this as soon as possible and without delay. Of course, we do not want to delay a second longer than we have to, but there are difficulties now that the Admiralty is no longer the great independent Department it used to be in years gone by, able to do things when and how it wanted. We are now in line with other Services, including the Civil Service, and there is still serious difficulty in getting the house purchase scheme going quickly. We shall press on as best we can.

§ Mr. Hay
Will the hon. Member take it from me, from experience, that if the Opposition are continually pressing Ministers it often spurs them on?

§ Mr. Mallalieu
We shall welcome pressure on that subject.
I was asked about the shortage of flying officers and flying crew and why so many leave at their break point. We have had the benefit of the report of the investigation into all the reasons for re-engagement which was set in motion under the previous Administration, and we have found it an extremely helpful report. Over and over again, the main reason for not re-engaging in all categories has been separation.
But there are other reasons, too, for flying crew. It is a very tough life, and they are being worked extremely hard at present. When they make comparisons between their life and life in the R.A.F. or the life of a civilian pilot, they are bound to see that they are at some disadvantage. We must see what we can do to improve their lot. If we cannot do it in the physical part of the job, we ought to be able to do it in cash and to make some sort of compensation for it. We shall certainly look at the matter.
I do not know how far I can go on this Vote into the subject of Polaris. It was not so much manpower which made us reach our decision about the fifth Polaris. It was partly that we had no intention of running an independent nuclear deterrent, but only to make a contribution to the A.N.F. There was also the question of the saving of cash which would result. I do not think that the saving in manpower is very considerable.

§ Mr. Hay
Suppose A.N.F. fails? What will be done then? Do we still have it?

§ Mr. Mallalieu
I have enough questions to answer about things which are happening now without dealing with hypothetical things for the future, which I shall leave to another time, if it arises.
I was asked about the changes in the General Service commission. I was asked how the scheme had been received. The hon. Member can probably guess: not very well, because it obviously means a slight increase in the period of separation. But it had to be done to get more work out of the ship, for operational reasons. The only way was to lengthen the General Service commission. As far as I know, the matelot fully understands the technical reasons for it, accepts it but does not like it very much.
The next question concerned centralised drafting. That has come in for quite a bit of pasting from time to time. There are still problems about drafting, but there has been an improvement during the last five years, since we have had centralised drafting. It has evened out the turbulence between one port and another, although it has not removed it altogether. On the whole, I believe that it has worked distinctly better than the old scheme, but we are watching it the whole time, trying to diminish the turbulence as much as we possibly can.

§ Dame Joan Vickers
I do not think that it has worked out better than the old scheme from the point of view of the wives. Previously, they were in their own home town, where they had their mothers to help them with their children. Now they may be anywhere. I understand the hon. Member's difficulties, but I hope that he will try to see what he can do to look at the addresses of these people and to ensure that they are sent to the right places.

§ Mr. Mallalieu
I assure the hon. Lady that that is done as far as possible. The drafting people are very much alive to this. I have seen for myself and I recognise the difficulties which occur when what was called a Devonport ship arrives in Portsmouth and there is a two-way traffic between the two at weekends. It is nonsense, and we try to avoid it as far as possible, but it is a very difficult problem.
910 We are watching it carefully and with the utmost sympathy and trying to make certain that there is no unnecessary turbulence.
There were many detailed questions, one or two of which I will not be able to answer at once, although I will reply to them by letter at the earliest possible moment. There were one or two things which the hon. Member said looked rather peculiar in the figures. But I do not think that the comments made by hon. Members are sound, because there are more—how we work it out I do not know—in the Service this year than there were last year, and not fewer. I will check the mathematics.

§ Mr. Atkins
If the hon. Member looks at page 47 he will see that there are fewer than in the previous year. It gives the average numbers of Service personnel by rank. Last year, there were 77,460 ratings in the Royal Navy and this year there are 76,805 ratings. Last year, there were 8,800 ranks in the Royal Marines and this year there are 9,135. If the hon. Member adds the two together he will see that there are fewer this year than there were last year. They are his own figures.

§ Mr. Mallalieu
I will look at that in the course of answering another point.
There seemed to be an anomaly about Queen Alexandra's Royal Nursing Service. At the moment, there is a shortage of nurses serving with the Fleet—that is to say, outside hospitals—and they are provided for under Vote 5. To remedy that shortage we are increasing the number of recruits we carry under Vote 1. There is thus a drop in the amount allowed on Vote 5 and an increase in the amount allowed on Vote 1—or the other way round.

§ Dame Joan Vickers
It is the other way round.

§ Mr. Mallalieu
The point is that there is a substantial increase in the intake at present to make up for the shortage of those serving with the Fleet, and this accounts for the drop in the Vote.
I do not know whether there were any other items of major importance raised during the debate. I have run quickly through some of the comparatively small points. For the rest, I will 911 reply in writing and in detail to all the points which have been raised and which I have not covered.

§ Dame Joan Vickers
Can the hon. Member give me an explanation about Subhead D(6)? I do not understand what that covers at all.

§ Mr. Mallalieu
That is under the heading, "Allowances of Ratings and Other Ranks". I have seen an explanation of that point, but I do not think I have it in my papers. May I give an explanation in writing?

§ Brigadier Terence Clarke (Portsmouth, West)
I raised with the Minister the other day the question of the commutation of pensions and the difficulty which people having in buying a house.

§ The Chairman
Order.

§ Brigadier Clarke
I should be grateful for a reply.

§ The Chairman
Order. The hon. and gallant Member must sit down while the Chairman is standing. The question of pensions will arise on a later Vote.