HL Deb 18 November 1930 vol 79 cc214-26

THE DUKE OF MONTROSE asked for information as to the scope of the inquiry to be made by the Admiralty Committee recently appointed to consider the present methods of recruiting officers for the Royal Navy; and further whether the future of Dartmouth College will be included in that inquiry. The noble Duke said: My Lords, I do not propose at this hour to keep you for any length of time with the Question that stands in my name. I simply want, by a few remarks, to elicit a little more information than was given in the Press regarding the appointment of a Committee of the Admiralty to enquire into the recruiting of young naval officers.

In 1927 I moved a Motion in this House on the subject of the training of naval officers, and I felt then that, in the interests of national economy and for the sake of the advantage of giving general education to the officers themselves, it might be a good thing to consider whether we should not rely further on the public schools and colleges of this country for a supply of naval officers. The debate that followed aroused wide interest, and many parents said afterwards that they had been to the beads of schools and colleges asking whether their sons could get a good general education and then enter the Navy. The heads of these colleges told them that they could do nothing. They could promise nothing and say nothing, because the policy of the special entry from the public schools had never been really systematised or organised. One day the Admiralty would say they would take half a dozen officers. A little later they would say they would take fifty officers and then again say they would take twelve officers. There was no system. It was not organised and the Headmasters' Conference, which is an organised body of college opinion, had never been taken into the confidence of the Admiralty. In this matter the Admiralty had acted rather autocratically and therefore I think the whole policy of the special entry has suffered.

It seems to me that at this time of urgent economy the question is whether we are not incurring excessive expenditure in maintaining two or three different entries into the Navy. There is the system of entry through Dartmouth, there is the special entry from the public schools, and there is the taking of a few cadets from the "Worcester," Pangbourne, etc. In these days, with the necessity for economy, it occurs to me as a matter of consideration whether we are not spending more money than we need in maintaining these three systems of entry, and whether it would not be better to concentrate upon one broad organised system. A good many people have said to me that they are anxious in these days, since the Washington Conference and the continued reduction in the Navy, that their sons should get a good general education before entering the Navy. There can be no doubt that if you take a boy of 13½ years of age his head can only contain a certain amount of knowledge, and if you require him to devote his attention to technical matters you must sacrifice some general education; and there is no doubt that if a naval officer has later on to leave the Service, by reason of naval reduction, this want of general education is a serious handicap to him. Therefore my question is whether this appointment of a Committee will deal with the training of officers as well as the recruiting of officers.

Then I would like to know whether, if it deals with the training of naval officers, the headmasters of schools and colleges are going to be consulted. Is the Headmasters' Conference going to be consulted? Or, are only naval officers and Admiralty officials going to have their opinions taken? Then, is the inquiry going to embrace the future of Dartmouth College? Dartmouth is a magnificent institution. In the language of the house agent, it has been laid out "regardless of expense." It is magnificent in its equipment, in its organisation, and in its staff, and there is no doubt that Dartmouth College has served its purpose well during the time when we required a large number of naval officers. To-day, however, consequent upon reductions in the Navy, the number of naval officers at Dartmouth has fallen off by 20 per cent. The numbers are still falling, and if it is true that we are going to give an increasing number of commissions to people from the lower decks, the numbers will fall faster still. The question then is, is the cost of Dartmouth not excessive per head of the naval officers taken into the Service? It comes back to this, would we not be wiser to concentrate upon one system of drawing our recruits for naval officers, and should we not consider more the claim of the great schools and colleges of the country?

There is no need to waste Dartmouth. It will always form a splendid foundation for a public school. There is no reason whatever why Dartmouth should not be a public school with a naval bias, so far as its O.T.C. is concerned, being the only public school with a naval O.T.C. No doubt many parents would still send their children to Dartmouth, if they were intending to go into the Navy. Then, is this inquiry going to cover Dartmouth, and is it to be a public inquiry, by which I do not mean an inquiry conducted in public but an inquiry of which the findings of the Committee will be made public? After all, the future of our naval officers is not just a departmental matter for the Admiralty. It is a national concern, and I hope therefore I am in order in asking for further information regarding the appointment of this Committee.

THE EARL OF GLASGOW

My Lords, I must say that I cannot feel very much in agreement with what the noble Duke has said about Dartmouth. So far as I understand, he wishes practically to abolish Dartmouth as the centre of training for the Navy, and to allow the public school entries into the Navy to be largely increased. Your Lordships all know, I am quite sure, what a splendid grounding Dartmouth gives to lads coming into the Navy—a grounding which is lacking to the boys who pass through the "Erebus." In my opinion, the sea sense necessary to sailors can only be got by joining young, and it will be a loss to efficiency if early training is modified in any way. The noble Duke wants more young officers to enter at a later age from schools. He seems to think that this will mean entries from public schools only. It will also mean that a large number of candidates from the elementary schools will also be eligible.

In my opinion, to get the right type of naval officer we want a man who in his youth has been taught patriotism and the significance of the splendid traditions of this country. No doubt many of the national schools have a sane and healthy outlook on these subjects, but there is also no doubt whatever that many are apathetic, if not actually hostile, and we know that Communists and others are active in their endeavours to introduce seditious and subversive teaching into the schools. For these reasons, I think it would be regrettable if national schools were drawn on for late entries. No doubt noble Lords opposite will put this down to class prejudice. It is nothing of the kind. It would be quite possible to have elementary school candidates as officers in His Majesty's Navy, given the right education. If there has to be a change, I should like to see the early entry kept and a larger open door at Dartmouth to the schools of the whole country. There they would get an education with the necessary outlook, which it is impossible to get from elementary schools. In order to do that the taxpayers would no doubt be called upon to pay the fees of many scholars from the national schools, and this seems rather absurd when as many as are required of the right type can be obtained who are prepared to pay their own way.

When I think of the old days in the Navy, I remember names which are probably quite unfamiliar to your Lordships, but which are well remembered and cherished in the Navy to-day. Some of these officers were stern disciplinarians. Their example was contagious and inspiring, and it was they who implanted in us lads of fifteen and sixteen the same reverence and the same desire to put the Service first in everything we did. And this has been carried on. There are officers now serving, the memories of whose example will be passed on by midshipmen now at sea. I am perfectly sure that these ideals would not inspire in the same way lads of nineteen and twenty. They have already seen something of the world, and their characters are half way to being moulded. They are more critical of everything, including perhaps the Naval Service itself; whereas the Dartmouth lad is critical of everything outside the Service, for he compares things outside to their disadvantage because they are not of the Service, which, owing to his earlier training, is all in the world to him.

At the same time, I would like to see the present system of direct entry remain as long as it is not extended, for this reason: At present we are getting the pick of the public schools, which we would not necessarily get if there were a very much larger number of entrants. Another reason is that it has been found from experience that when the "Erebus" cadet and the Dartmouth cadet are together in the same ship you always find a splendid spirit of competition and rivalry, which is all for the good of the Service. I claim to have kept in touch with the Navy since I left it, and there is one thing which serving officers are unanimous about, and that is the loss of efficiency in the training of young officers, due to the doing away of the sea-going training cruisers which used to be attached to Dartmouth. Formerly two modern cruisers were detailed to take Dartmouth cadets for a training cruise before they joined the Fleet as midshipmen. These ships have been withdrawn from motives of economy. Now the custom is that cadets leave Dartmouth and go to sea, and the atmosphere of the seagoing ship is not conducive to training. It is not like a training ship. The result is that these subordinate officers do the duties of subordinate officers really before they are fit for them.

Many serving naval officers advocate the use of a sailing ship, instead of a cruiser, for training purposes when a ship is re-allotted to Dartmouth. It is very important that a ship should be re-allotted to Dartmouth as soon as possible. I claim that with a sailing ship you would serve a double purpose. You would give the lads that sea sense which is so necessary, and you would achieve economy, because, compared to a modern cruiser, you would get a much cheaper ship, and you would be able to fit her up, and keep her in condition at a much cheaper rate. This may sound rather retrograde, perhaps, to some of your Lordships, but it is not so, with all clue respect. I suggest that it would be perfectly possible to arrange for a vessel of this kind to be fitted in such a way that the cadets would receive as good a modern training as they get in a cruiser. And there would be the added advantage that they would be serving in a masted ship, with all its opportunities for responsibility. Opportunities for responsibility are, to my mind, the most important thing in the training of young officers of the Navy. I can think of at least twelve positions of responsibility in a sailing ship in the making and taking in of sail, and of even more in the operation of striking lower yards and top-masts.

The present Government are known for their anxiety to economise in certain directions. Here is a chance for economy combined with efficiency. I beg the noble Lord who will reply to give some indication whether there is any chance of Dartmouth receiving a seagoing training ship of some description in the near future. Finally, I would like to emphasise that a large number of serving officers are against any increase of the entries from the public schools, and I ask the Government not to be led away in this direction by the specious arguments of the noble Duke or anyone else. To my mind, if such an error was committed, it would shatter the groundwork of the most efficient Service in the world.

THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH

My Lords, when I was a schoolmaster a good many years ago small boys who entered the Navy entered through Osborne. Later a change was made and that change was made after consultation with the headmasters of the great public schools in the way that the noble Duke has suggested those headmasters should now be consulted. At the time I believe I stood rather alone in the matter in saying that I did not expect that if boys were taken from the public schools and taken at the age, I think it was, of about fifteen, they would have derived very much from their public school course, and I thought it was better to allow things to remain as they were. Many changes have been made since those days and I do not claim to have followed them all. But I think we do fall into a certain confusion of thought when we say that the public school training is so admirable that it is to the advantage of all the boys in the Service to have passed through the public schools. It is not the earlier years at a public school that help the boys most, it is the later years, in which they come to those posts of responsibility which have just been mentioned.

There can be no question that the War and the conduct of the gallant young officers in the War set a great premium upon our public schools, and I do not, suppose that at any time in their his- tory they stood so high in public favour as they do to-day. But speaking generally, the young men who come from our public schools and who have done so well in the public Service of their country, have been those who went right through the public schools from the bottom to the top, and it was in their last year or years that they acquired the qualifications which have enabled them to adorn their profession. The case is different, I fancy, with the University. If a young man cannot afford to spend three or four years at a University with an idea of taking his degree at the end, but can afford to spend one year there, I believe that at that time of his life the insight he gets into humanity in its largest sense and into culture and comradeship by going to the University for one year is well worth his while. But it would be quite a false analogy to suggest that a boy would get a similar advantage by being at a public school for one year. That course, I think, must be a completed course.

On the whole, it is my humble judgment that if boys are taken from public schools they should be those who have reached the older age, and if there is any idea of taking them young that policy would not be nearly so effective as allowing them to be trained for the Navy from their youngest years. But I believe an admixture is an admirable thing. I believe it is a good thing that boys who have been reared in a naval atmosphere from the beginning should be brought into contact with those who have gained rather a different outlook on life by completing their public school career. On the other hand, I can well believe that these public schoolboys who go into the Navy will prove efficient officers; all the more efficient because they are brought into constant companionship with those who, taken younger, have a naval outlook from the very beginning. When, then, we speak of taking boys from the public schools, it is, I think, of great importance that we should draw a distinction between taking them young from the public school and taking them after they have gone through the whole of the public school course and have enjoyed and exercised those responsibilities which will only come to them in their later years at a public school.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

My Lords, on the whole, I very much agree with the words that have fallen from the right rev. Prelate, and with the general tenour of his speech. But he seemed to me to see in the noble Duke's proposal a plan for taking boys of fifteen or after they have been at a public school for one year. The present plan is that they are taken at seventeen and a-half and, therefore, although that has not quite the merits that we would desire if they were taken a little later, they have then had three or four years of the advantages of public school life. I know there are arguments against it, and I think very likely it would be far better to take them at the time they would naturally be leaving a public school, not at seventeen and a-half but at eighteen or eighteen and a-half, because that would give you those boys who have wished to get to the top of their school and to be in the sixth form. You would have a much better chance of that than if you take boys who are content to leave at seventeen and a-half and have probably given up the ambition of being in the higher places there.

As regards our experience of special entry cadets, I think it is true to say that they have proved themselves very satisfactory. But it must be remembered that the system began so recently that none of those who entered under it have reached really high and responsible places in the Navy. Therefore, it is a little premature to judge. It must also be remembered that those who have got some little way up now were recruited in the War and are possibly a keener type of officer than might be got in time of peace.

I agree very much with the right rev. Prelate that it would be a very great mistake to do away with Dartmouth and to substitute a larger number of special entry cadets. The noble Duke spoke as if you could not get a general education at Dartmouth. Boys get an education there which would compare very favourably with that on the modern side of any school. The whole of his argument really falls to the ground, if I am right—as I am sure I am—in saying that you get an admirable general education at Dartmouth and that the specialising on the technical side is a very small proportion of the teaching. But what is still more valuable at Dartmouth is the sea sense, and the traditions which the boys get at that early age. There is no other place of education, I think, for boys of that age where they are actually brought into contact with young naval officers who are in active service at sea. Dartmouth has been exceptionally fortunate, I think, in the officers who have filled the post of Captain and, as a rule, in those who have assisted them. Although, if I wished to criticise Dartmouth, there might be one or two points I could raise, I do not want to do that to-night; but I want to say that it would be a very great mistake for anybody to imagine that the boys do not get a very good general education there. It would also be a very great mistake to take away the chance at any rate of a large section of our future naval officers of having very early contact with the active naval officers who are there, of whom they see a very great deal, who do a great deal to form their characters and to give them that feeling of alertness, cheerfulness and quick obedience which is absolutely essential for a naval officer.

THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Loan MARLEY)

My Lords, I will not keep your Lordships very long at this late hour, and I will do my best to reply to the various points that have been raised. It might reassure your Lordships if I re-read the terms of reference to this Committee which is under review. They are:— To consider whether the present systems of entry of Naval Cadets and Naval Cadets (E) are such as to give candidates of the requisite standard from all types of schools and belonging to all classes of the community a fair opportunity of being considered on their merits for entry as cadets, and if not, to report what changes are recommended in order to extend the fields of selection, subject to the requirements of the Naval Service. I cannot, of course, interpret those terms of reference, but I can say that beyond the terms of reference there is no restriction whatever on the Committee's inquiry—none whatever.

Equally, there is no specific proposal or specific policy upon which the Committee are asked to report. The Committee do not deal with the subject of the training of naval officers and, therefore, in my opinion, Dartmouth College is not directly included, though, of course, if the system of entry is examined and recommendations are made for a change, that might necessarily involve some alteration in Dartmouth College itself. The same answer applies to the question of training ships, and the question of the substitution of sailing ships as a training for the cadets. I find myself somewhat in agreement with the points raised in that connection. I can only say that I will convey that message to my right hon. friend the First Lord, and I am sure that the economy side of the suggestion will appeal to him.

I was also asked whether the inquiry would be public or private, and I am sorry that I do not know whether it will be public or private. I suppose that rests with the Committee partly. The Committee, I suppose, has a right to say whether the Press shall be allowed to attend its meetings. Otherwise I cannot say; but I am prepared to find out and to inform the noble Lord who asked that question. Of course, almost the same reply must be made to the right rev. Prelate in this matter; because, of course, it is obvious that the question whether the special entries shall continue or be extended or modified is definitely within the terms of reference of the Committee. Therefore I cannot say what finding the Committee will come to in that connection. I can only say it is definitely being considered. The noble Lord who spoke last (Viscount Bridgeman) will, I know, be glad to hear this. I do not want it to be thought that in setting up this Committee my right hon. friend, the First Lord of the Admiralty, was in any way dissatisfied with the standard of the present entrants, either educationally or in other qualities which are necessary to make a good officer. It is not a question of being dissatisfied. On the other hand, it is possible that the present system of entry and the present financial arrangements tend to restrict the field from which entrants are at present drawn to a comparatively small section of the community, whereas the national system of education is developing the ability and the character required in a naval officer in a much wider field—a field which may be expected to extend still more in the immediate future.

I shall deal with the next matter very briefly. The question arises whether it cannot be urged that the best course would be for the Admiralty to concentrate upon the present system of promotion from the lower deck through the rank of mate, and to make more promotions under that system. Anybody who has served in the Navy knows that that system has certain obvious disadvantages, but the Admiralty have appointed a separate Committee to deal with that aspect of the problem. I do not propose to read the terms of reference, but that Committee will consider in what way the disadvantages of the mate system can be mitigated. In any case, I think, those members of your Lordships' House who are interested in this question will know that the system is not altogether satisfactory, and that there seems a definite disadvantage in necessarily entering boys who are going to be officers through the lower deck. It seems to the Government that there must be some better way of widening the basis from which the choice of future naval officers is made. The Admiralty are anxious, with the help of the Committee referred to, to ascertain whether by any alterations of syllabus or other conditions of entry—not excluding financial conditions—they can encourage candidates who will not only reach the present high standard to which the noble Lord referred, but should even help to raise that standard still higher, to come forward for entry-as cadets from other types of school and other classes of the community besides those from which the Navy already draws. That is a method by which we hope to be able to take advantage of the natural evolution of our national system of education.

In that connection, I do want to say one word of re-assurance to the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, who reminded us of the terrible communistic tendencies of the public elementary schools. I know that it is not due in any way to class prejudice, as he suggested. I think it is due to unawareness of the real facts of the matter. I feel certain that he need not have the fear that he suggested. I was very glad to hear him say that he wanted to see an open door for boys from all schools. I am quite certain that my right hon. friend will be very glad to hear that expression of opinion from him. We do not know when the Committee will report, but I am certain your Lordships will await its Report with great interest. I can assure your Lordships that the Admiralty are looking forward also with great interest to that Report. I trust that I have dealt with all the questions raised by noble Lords in the course of the debate.

House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before seven o'clock.