HL Deb 27 March 1952 vol 175 cc1083-96

6.12 p.m.

Debate resumed.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

My Lords, after this welcome entracte I will resume my observations. I wish to say a word now about Regular recruiting and National Service. It is our contention that Regular recruiting could not fill the gap in our requirements, for the following reasons. In the first place, new recruits will not meet our immediate needs for senior and experienced ratings. And these, of course, are needed in a larger proportion, compared with the other two Services, because of the essentially different character of the Naval Service. I am quite certain that both the noble Viscount and Lord Pakenham will agree with that radical distinction. It would be impertinent for me to remind the noble Viscount, whose knowledge of the Navy is so much greater than mine, that the warship is a unique concentration of technical equipment—electrical, engineering, radar—and armament power, which in the case of the other two Services, as any of us who served in the Army in the last war will know, is dispersed over a large number of units.

Secondly, so far as I can understand, additional numbers of recruits could be trained only by diverting to their training large numbers of senior and experienced men in the Active Fleet whose shortage has already been largely responsible for the policy of retaining men and calling up reservists. Next, experience has shown that our present recruiting target, up to 11,500 for men on seven-year or twelve-year engagements is as high as is practicable in the present state of the labour market. I think additional proof lies in the fact that the Army and the R.A.F. are now relying mainly on the three-year engagement, but we say that a three-year engagement is of no use to the Royal Navy. It is surely far too short to produce the numbers of petty officers and chief petty officers we require. Exactly the same argument applies to our National Service intake, which has been kept very low for the next financial year—namely, 3,300.

I might add the obvious point that recruitment, if it is not to be wasteful by entering men who could only be supernumerary, must be based on the proportion of junior to senior ratings that is required for a balanced Navy. I think it would be wrong to base our recruiting programme, even if it could be increased, on the present swollen numbers of higher ratings. I should emphasise, however, that every possible measure has been taken in the last year to build up the numbers of already trained men, by making schemes more attractive not only for re-engagements, but for short re-entries. We are, indeed, only too well aware that the first essential is a proper balance, as the noble Viscount says, between the lower and higher ratings, and our whole recruiting policy is at the moment governed by that realisation.

I come now to the question of Dartmouth, which I think has caused some anxiety to the noble Viscount, and some interest to Lord Teynham, with whose views I personally am in entire agreement. As the House will remember, for a good many years before 1948, entry to the Royal Naval College took place at the age of 13½. In 1947, however, the Admiralty introduced a scheme of entry at 16, with a running down of the entry at age 13½ to take place over the following two years. The system of entry at age 16 came into operation in 1948. Many of the boys who have entered under the age-16 scheme are of just the same high standard as that of the old age 13½ entry. Nevertheless, the scheme has not been realising a sufficient number of cadets to meet our present requirements. The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, I think (I may be doing him an injustice), suggested that he was never told that we were getting enough—

VISCOUNT HALL

No, I attempted to express the view that I was not informed that there was a scarcity of executive and specialist officers. A scarcity of pilots and officers for naval aviation, yes; but not the others.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

Then I beg the noble Viscount's pardon. I can only say, however, that none of the age-16 entries during the noble Viscount's tenure of office was able to produce the number of boys required. He may remember that this shortfall occurred principally in the engineering branch. Even the total number passed by the interview board has usually been slightly below the total number of vacancies, so that in effect almost everyone who has passed the interview board and has been medically fit has been awarded a cadetship. This has applied to all branches and, quite frankly, has meant that the Admiralty have had to take too many boys who have only just been good enough. I understand the noble Viscount would like the number of those awarded cadetships.

VISCOUNT HALL

I have had them.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

Then I will not repeat them. I am perfectly willing to bring to the attention of my right honourable friend Lord Hall's suggestion that he should visit the ships which the noble Viscount himself visited and to which he referred. I rather think that my right honourable friend was on the steps of the Throne while the noble Viscount was speaking.

The Board have been concerned at the situation I have described, and have had to consider ways and means of remedying the shortage. The basic problem has been whether the present systems of officer entry—16-years-old, 18-years-old and from the lower deck—should be supplemented, or whether any of them should be replaced by an additional entry at a younger age. And I should like to say this to the noble Viscount: neither the First Lord nor anyone whom he has consulted would envisage the abolition of any of the existing entries. The Board have concluded, however, that they cannot afford to take the risk of merely waiting to see whether the age-16 entry will produce a sufficient increase in numbers fully to satisfy our needs. They have therefore either to take steps to get appreciably greater numbers from the existing methods of entry or tap some additional source. Any additional method would, of course, have to be one which would give a fair chance to every boy who had the qualities and qualifications required as a foundation for training as a naval officer. I am sure that the noble Viscount would feel strongly about this.

At this point, I think I cannot do better than to quote from the statement of my right honourable friend in another place on March 6. The First Lord then said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons; VOl. 497, Col. 681): We are setting up a Working Party, an Inquiry—call it what you like—to tackle the problem from the stage which my own informal inquiries have reached, and to advise me on the methods of supplementing the present inadequate entries. The noble Viscount, I think, is interested in the composition of this Working Party. I am sorry to say that I can only tell him that it has not yet been finally decided, but the Admiralty hope that a decision will be taken within the next few weeks. I can also assure the noble Viscount that my right honourable friend will bear very much in mind his remarks on the width of the held to be covered by this Working Party. I hope the noble Viscount will allow me to leave the matter there for the moment.

I come now to the question of what the trials cruiser has done and what she is doing. The noble Viscount asked about this. This cruiser has been specially allocated for carrying out sea trials of new equipment and weapons, and for work on research and development. The general plan as regards the "Cumberland" is that she should, so far as possible, do trials during the summer months and should spend the winter being fitted with the equipment necessary for trials in the next trials season, and for progress in work on the installation of trial equipment. The priority assessment of weapons and equipment to be given sea trials is most carefully worked out by the Naval Staff divisions. For obvious reasons of security, I cannot give your Lordships particulars of the new equipment undergoing trials. I might add, for the benefit of Lord Hall, that the conversion of the "Cumberland" to a trials cruiser was completed in May last year, and sea trials of certain equipment have already been carried out. The ship was taken into dockyard hands last December for fitting further new equipment for trial. The noble Viscount has also asked for assurances that the Admiralty are not overlooking the desirability of designing more advanced cruisers; that we are not forgetting the importance which cruisers may have in the future; and that at an appropriate stage we will consider the construction of an advanced cruiser. I freely give that assurance.

I come now to the question of H.M.S. "Ceres"—a subject which appears to have caused the noble Viscount a little embarrassment. He mentioned the change of plan over the transfer of H.M.S. "Ceres" to Chatham. I should like to assure him that the Admiralty were fully aware throughout their examination of this matter of the undertaking which had been given to the civic authorities of the Medway town. They were compelled to review, and eventually to cancel, the project by the fact that, as detailed plans for the transfer were drawn up, it became evident that the buildings comprising the former Royal Marine barracks could be converted into a training establishment only at a cost of the order of £250,000. It was felt that such an outlay, and the consequential calls on labour and materials, could not be faced at the present time when our energies have to be devoted to major defence projects of the highest priority. Moreover, I have been advised that closer examination has revealed that, because of their layout, style and age, the barracks could never be made into really satisfactory accommodation for officers and men. I would make the further point that the purpose behind the undertaking which the noble Viscount gave when he was First Lord of the Admiralty was to replace the Royal Marines by a roughly equivalent number of Naval officers and men. The principle behind this undertaking has already been observed, because the Naval population of Chatham to-day is larger than was the combined Naval and Marine population at Chatham in 1950.

I come next to the very important questions raised by the noble Viscount about nuclear energy for the propulsive machinery of submarines and other warships. I should like to say just this. The noble Viscount may rely upon it that the Admiralty are fully seized of the importance of nuclear energy for these purposes, and although we are, perhaps, not so far forward as our friends in the United States, we are at the present moment devoting a great deal of attention to this project, and we hope that eventually we shall not be lagging far behind. Speaking of propulsion, the noble Lord, Lord Winster, asked whether, in the general field of propulsion, we are pooling our knowledge with the U.S.A. I can assure him that we are, and that our research and development programme is coordinated with that of the United States. Some points are left to the Americans who keep us informed, while others are pursued by us and we tell the Americans of the progress and results. I think the noble Lord also mentioned standardisation. We are co-operating very closely with the U.S.A. in standardisation of equipment and operational doctrine. In general, I think that inter-Service co-operation in standardisation is good, and should soon show dividends in economy by cutting down the number and the complexity of both materials and orders. If the noble Lord, Lord Winster will forgive me in the interests of time. I will not attempt to answer other points which he raised at the moment, but I promise that I will do so in due course.

LORD WINSTER

Including the question of the battleship?

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

I should like to answer a question about which I believe the noble Lord feels some concern—that is the question of the numbers of Russian submarines. I am unaware of any official statement of the number of submarines possessed by the Russians, apart from what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, on April 11 last year, and I will quote his words (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 171, col.277): To prevent any underestimation or exaggeration of this threat, it should be generally known that I would not disagree with the figure of the total submarine strength of the Soviet fleet as being about 360"— I have nothing to add to this statement. Another noble Lord put the Soviet submarine strength at 300, but apparently it is considered to be more than that.

LORD WINSTER

I asked the noble Earl whether he will eventually answer my question about the battleship.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

I am coming to the battleship in a minute. The Soviet submarines are known to be stationed with the Pacific, Black Sea, Baltic and Northern Fleets. With regard to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, about flying strain, and the desirability of giving a minimum of one year's general service in eight years' flying to all future general officers who take up flying, I am glad to say that under a Fleet order promulgated last year the maximum number of years a pilot will fly consecutively is limited to eight, while every officer holding a permanent commission shall spend at least one year as a lieutenant at sea in a general Service appointment.

In regard to scientists, about which there appears to be considerable anxiety, there is no intention to reduce the present number of scientists. In fact, it is intended that certain increases should be made, and some are already being made. We are doing everything possible to obtain recruits and, in answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, we are in touch Kith the universities with a view to recruiting scientists after they have taken their degree in the summer.

LORD PAKENHAM

If the noble Earl is leaving that point, may I say that I am far from being completely satisfied by the phrasing of his answer? I will not press him further to-day, but I must take leave to return to the subject once, and indeed very often, in the future.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

I shall he only too pleased to encounter my noble friend on the subject again. I am sorry that he is not satisfied. I now come to the noble Lord's main observations and I hope that I shall satisfy him about these. He made an extremely arresting speech. So far as I understand him, the noble Lord is concerned with our efforts to interest young naval officers in aviation, efforts which he fears are inadequate, and he asked whether we ought not to shorten the time which elapses before an officer begins to specialise in naval aviation. These are serious points, and I shall try to satisfy the noble Lord. With regard to voluntary flying, summer gliding and flying camps are arranged for Dartmouth cadets during their holiday and no charge is made for that training. Secondly, arrangements are now being made whereby junior officers undergoing their technical course in Portsmouth may learn to fly in light aircraft in their spare time and at no cost to themselves. The air course, which is part of the series of technical courses, and includes actual flying experience, has been increased from three to four weeks. In future, greater weight will be given to the marks for the air course in assessing lieutenant seniority. Only the urgent need for economy has prevented the laying out of a small airfield adjacent to the Royal Naval College to provide flying facilities on the spot. As an alternative, a scheme has been drawn up to provide such facilities at the airfield it Roborough for volunteers in their second year at Dartmouth. This scheme is now under examination and it is hoped that a start may be possible very shortly.

With regard to the noble Lord's second point, I cannot say much. The Admiralty are already sympathetically studying the possibility, but they feel that it is at present far from clear whether any shortening of the time before an officer begins to specialise would be sound policy. We must remember that the Admiralty attach great importance to the general training which all executive sub-lieutenants receive, and also to their attaining their watch-keeping certificates before embarking on their various specialisations. The noble Lords, Lord Hall and Lord Pakenham, asked whether the location of the initial flying training school could be moved to the Portsmouth area. I can say only that this matter is now under consideration.

I should now like to say a few words about naval aircraft, in answer to both noble Lords opposite. When the £4,700,000,000 rearmament programme was drawn up, it was based on the assumption that any necessary measures would be taken to ensure that both labour and materials were available to the aircraft industry at the right time and in the right places. The problem of labour supply, in particular, proved difficult to surmount, and the inevitable result is that the aircraft programme, both for the Royal Navy and for the Royal Air Force, is running behind the planned level. The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, is right there. As regards fighters, it is true that the Attacker was intended as a stop gap, to be replaced by the faster Sea Hawk, and, therefore, only a limited number were ordered. Deliveries of the Attacker, I am glad to say, are up to schedule. It is now expected that the Sea Hawk will be coming into service later this year. Both of these aircraft will have a performance at least as good as the equivalent R.A.F. fighter aircraft in service at the same time. It is true that deliveries of the Gannet are expected to be behind schedule. I can assure the House, however, that all possible steps are being taken to accelerate deliveries of this aircraft, which is being given the same special priority that is being accorded to new types of fighters for the R.A.F.

The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, would like me to say a word about the Atlantic Command. The Atlantic Command arrangements of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation at present agreed are as follows. The Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic, is Admiral Lynde D. McCormick, United States Navy. The Deputy-Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic, is Vice-Admiral Sir William Andrewes, K.B.E., C.B.E., D.S.O. In peace time, Admiral McCormick also holds the United States naval appointment of Commander-in-Chief, Western Atlantic, and Vice-Admiral Andrewes holds the British naval appointment of Commander-in-Chief, America and West Indies Station. Under the Supreme Allied Commander, the Atlantic will be divided into two areas. The Eastern Area will be commanded by a British Admiral, who will be styled Commander-in-Chief, Eastern Atlantic. This Area will have two naval sub-areas, each commanded by a British Admiral. The Eastern Area will also have a R.A.F. officer in command of the air, with the title of Air-Commander-in-Chief, Eastern Atlantic. There will also be two air sub-commands, corresponding to the two naval subcommands, under the command of R.A.F. officers.

The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, also asked me what is being done about increasing man-power on naval work in the shipyards. The increased requirements for labour in the commercial yards are principally in the fitting-out trades for the carriers and in shipwrights for the minesweeper programme. For the latter, super priority has been given, and it is to be expected that this will materially improve the situation. In the Royal Dockyards we have 600 vacancies for shipwrights, of whom 500 are ultimately required at Portsmouth. In addition, we have some 600 other craftsmen vacancies, including boilermakers, engine fitters and joiners, electrical fitters, ship fitters and coppersmiths. A dilution agreement, which at present applies only to Portsmouth, was concluded in June, 1951, with the Ship Constructors and Shipwrights Association. This agreement has enabled 110 dilutee shipwrights to be recruited to date, either by direct entry or by upgrading men already employed in the Yard. The proposal to extend this dilution agreement to other yards, and particularly Devonport, is still under consideration by the Union concerned.

The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, asked that R.N.V.R. officers who showed sufficient promise should be given opportunities to obtain a watch-keeping certificate. I am glad to say that modified watch-keeping certificates are obtainable by executive officers in the R.N.V.R. sea tenders, but they apply only to that type of ship. Full watch-keeping certificates can be obtained by executive officers in the Fleet, but as they require at least six months' sea service as sublieutenants and above, it takes many years of annual training to achieve them, unless officers are prepared to undergo long periods of voluntary training, which they are perfectly entitled to do.

In reply to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Winster, about the organisation of the Royal dockyards, I should remind him that the Royal dockyards are very different from private shipyards, in that, as well as being large repair yards, they are also the home manning and storing ports of the Fleet, so that at all times there are a number of vessels lying in various forms of commission in the dockyards with large numbers of sailors manning them, all coming under the jurisdiction of the Admiral Superintendent. The Admiral Superintendent acts in a dual capacity, in that he is the representative of the Commander-in-Chief in dealing with all Fleet matters in the dockyard. He is the head of the dockyard and other civil establishments in the port, such as victualling yards, stores and armament supply depôts. It is his responsibility to co-ordinate the requirements and efforts of the various civil establishments and dockyard departments, and of the officers commanding the various ships taken in hand in the dockyard. He is deputy to the Commander-in-Chief in all matters. It is therefore clear that it is of the utmost importance to keep the dockyards in close contact with all the activities of the Fleet within its precincts, and it is only an executive officer of the Royal Navy of very high standing who is in a position to do this.

The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, raised various points about the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors. I should like to remind the noble Viscount that the new scales of pay for probationary assistant constructors were announced only five months ago, and it is too soon to say what their effect is going to be. But, without suggesting that we are satisfied, we can justly say that the number of applications coming in this year continues to show the signs of improvement of which the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, informed your Lordships on August 1, 1951. During the last twelve months four officers have resigned, but only one of them was attracted to a post in private industry. The scales of pay of members of the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors now compare favourably with those of Government scientists. The comparison with scientists is most appropriate, for in both classes the public service is in competition with industry for honours graduates of the universities. The considerations which have to be taken into account in assessing the rates of naval pay and allowances are quite different from those which govern the pay of civil servants, whose conditions of service are entirely different. It may be pointed out that in addition to receiving £400 a year at the age of twenty-four, the probationary assistant constructor receives free board and partly free messing. There can be no doubt that on any Civil Service comparison that is very reasonable remuneration, and when the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecole, says that it is too little to attract university entries, I feel, with respect, that he loses sight of the fact that university men of the same calibre are, in fact, attracted into the scientific Civil Service by a gross salary of £400 a year without the addition of accommodation and messing (or £450 if the man has done his National Service), less 5 per cent. deduction for superannuation.

I have warned the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that I cannot now attempt to answer all the comprehensive questions he raised, but I wall do so personally later on. However, I should like to say this. The noble Earl asked whether aircraft of a special type are used for antisubmarine operations by the Royal Navy, and, if so, whether there is any overlap between naval aviation and Coastal Command; what are the respective duties of naval aviation and Coastal Command; and whether a full outfit of aeroplanes of all types for our carriers is available, and, if not, what is the position. The answer to the first of these questions is "Yes" In anti-submarine warfare naval aviation and Coastal Command do not overlap, but are complementary. Within the economic range of shore-based aircraft, air anti-submarine cover in home waters would normally be given by Coastal Command: outside that range it would normally be given by naval aircraft operating from carriers. There is close co-operation between the Royal Navy and Coastal Command. As regards the noble. Lord's last question, it is not the practice in time of peace to fill our carriers to their maximum capacity, though individual carriers are brought up to full war complement periodically for exercise purposes. I should like to apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for not having dealt with all the other questions he raised, but I feel sure he will understand that they were quite comprehensive, and I really have not the time.

The noble Lord, Lord Winster, asked the question: What is the purpose of the battleship? That was a sudden onslaught, and the noble Lord must take my opinion. We have, I believe, five battleships—I do not know how many are in commission—and there is no intention of building any more. It would appear to be of elementary prudence to keep what we have, bearing in mind that it is really never safe to discard a weapon of any kind when other countries possess it. It might well be that certain circumstances might occur, such as very bad weather, in which no other unit could operate efficiently. That would be my answer to the noble Lord on that question, although it is a purely personal one, made rather on the spur of the moment. I have only one further remark to make. The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, raised an important question about fast patrol boats. He asked whether I could say that we had ordered these boats in adequate numbers. This is an extremely difficult and confidential question, and I cannot go further than this. The noble Lord has gone, but he can read my reply in Hansard. He may rest assured that we are ordering fast patrol boats in what we believe to be adequate numbers. We must, of course, take the fullest advantage of the experience to be obtained from our experimental boats. We are confident that there will be a big future for the gas turbine engine in the Royal Navy's coastal craft.

I am afraid I have left out a great many questions but, as I said before, I intend to see that these are faithfully dealt with later on. I have tried, and I hope to some extent succeeded, to convince your Lordships that the Royal Navy is in good shape as well as in good hands. We realise clearly that in a future war we should have to face a new enemy, well versed in the lessons of the past and able to rely upon radical developments in weapons and in strategy. For that reason, we must be prepared to fight a new type of sea battle—and there I am in profound agreement with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham. I suggest that we have progressed most remarkably with the aid of our scientists, whose unending research work is paying great dividends in the production of new weapons, equipment and counter-measures to the latest weapons of potential enemy forces. In the past few days I have been working on this speech at the Admiralty in the Nelson Room, where the ghost of that illustrious sailor still lingers, and I feel that with his spirit, which lives on in the skill and courage of the officers and men in the Royal Navy, we shall be vigilant to safeguard his glorious traditions.

6.54 p.m.

VISCOUNT HALL

My Lords, in a few sentences I should like to express my gratitude to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which has been very interesting and well worth while. I am not going to comment upon the remarks of the noble Earl other than to say this. He has had a hard task as his first job. I know of no Minister who has been more painstaking and thorough in attempting to answer the numerous questions which have been fired at him. I thank him personally for the care that he has taken in replying to the questions which I submitted, and I am sure that I am speaking for other noble Lords. They can say this of him which they could not say of me when I was replying for the Admiralty from that Box. I adopted the tactics of the politician and dodged some of the questions, but the noble Earl has not dodged a single one. In the name of all noble Lords who have received replies, I would ask him to accept our great gratitude and thanks. Without any hesitation, I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.