§ 2.36 P.M.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERYMy Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government if their attention has been called to various communications to the Press in which it is pointed out that, although the uniformed personnel of the Royal Navy has been greatly reduced since 1933 (a year in which this country possessed a powerful fleet in full Commission), the civilian personnel has been increased by approximately 100,000 individuals; and what is the reason for this disparity.]
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF SELKIRK)My Lords, the Navy's Vote "A", or total uniformed personnel, has not, in fact, been reduced since the year 1933; the current Vote "A" of 120,000 is about 30 per cent. higher than the corresponding figure in 1933. The numbers of civilians are influenced by very different factors. Most of them are employed on the design, production, storage and 1200 repair of the ships, weapons and equipment of the Fleet, and they have tended to increase over the last twenty-five years because equipment is more complicated and requires more men to handle it; the range of items held in store is much greater; and ships take longer to refit—sometimes three times as long. In addition, in the first place, work formerly carried out by uniformed personnel is now being done by civilians; secondly, improved welfare services and amenities require larger staff; and thirdly, the Admiralty are doing more work on repairment, mostly for foreign countries. The size can be seen by the amount of the Appropriations-in-Aid in Navy accounts.
I would not, however, differ from the noble Earl that the efficient employment of personnel in a large Department requires constant vigilance. All shore establishments are accordingly brought from time to time under very close scrutiny, and as a result of current examination the number of civilians employed by the Admiralty has fallen by 10,000 in the last twelve months. These examinations continue. Their purpose is not, however, simply to reduce Service personnel; indeed, it is Her Majesty's Government's policy to employ civilians instead of Service personnel when this will enable better use to be made of Service personnel and so get more ships to sea. The overriding object is to ensure that all are usefully and efficiently employed so as to give the best value for money.
§ EARL HOWEMy Lords, I take it that the noble Earl would agree with the thesis that it is important to have a contented Service? Does the noble Earl think that the Answer which he has just given will do much towards that end, having regard to the announcement made by the Admiralty the other day that 2,000 officers were going to be "put on the beach"? Equally, does he not think that the whole question of the size of the civilian staff in the Navy might be further examined?
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, I have said that the civilian personnel in the Navy is under very close scrutiny and will so continue. I agree with the noble Earl that the number of officers retired is larger than I should have hoped; but I think it is fair to say 1201 that the terms on which these premature retirements have been made are reasonably fair.
§ LORD WINSTERMy Lords, may I ask the First Lord whether he is aware of the profoundly dispiriting effect these figures must have upon officers in the Navy? As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has said, hundreds of them are now seeing the careers in which they have taken such pride brought to an abrupt end; yet the figures of civilian personnel remain at this very high level. Does not the First Lord know that that cannot be good for the morale of the remaining officers?
§ LORD CHATFIELDMy Lords, before the noble Earl answers, may I add to that question by asking whether it is not a fact, as has been stated in the Press, that 90 per cent. of the officers who are taking their discharge have done so voluntarily?
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, I am sure we are all glad to see the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Chatfield, back with us again after his illness. He is perfectly correct in saying that 90 per cent. are volunteers on the terms offered for premature retirement. I will add only this to the noble Lord, Lord Winster. It is not really practicable to exchange officers for certain civilians: they are performing entirely different tasks, and I know, that many of the officers would not wish to do this particular civilian work. But, as I have pointed out, the number of civilians has fallen by about 10,000 in the current year, and I would say that that is certainly not the end of the story.
§ LORD WINSTERMy Lords, might I ask the First Lord whether it is not the case that while that very large percentage of officers has retired voluntarily, it is for the reason that they see no particular prospects in their profession at the present moment? Surely that is again an illustration of the dispiriting effect which these reductions are having upon the officer personnel.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, I should like to emphasise two points: first, that one of the results of the method of premature retirement will be that prospects will remain equally good for those who remain, and, secondly, I can, I hope, give an assurance that the numbers who have been prematurely retired 1202 are the end of the story and accordingly that those who remain have as equally good prospect as they had before—in fact, I think, a slightly better prospect.
§ LORD CHATFIELDMy Lords, arising out of the noble Earl's first Answer, in which he referred to the increase in the amount of dockyard labour owing to the greater amount of repair work now taking place, and its difficulty, may I ask whether the same effort is made at sea for our ships to be kept up to date and repaired by their own personnel, a practice introduced by myself thirty years ago?
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords I can assure the noble Lord that those schemes which he initiated thirty years ago are carried on to-day to a full extent
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERYMy Lords, I thank the noble Earl for answering my Question and I am sure he will not take it amiss if I say that his. Answer was exactly what I expected. But the articles and letters to which I have called attention by my Question go far deeper than anything to which he has alluded, and they require an answer. Is it really necessary to have something like 180,000 civilian personnel to run a Navy which has a personnel of 140,000? The whole truth is that the number of civilians employed under the Admiralty is never subjected to Parliamentary control. Vote A gives on its first page the number of uniformed personnel, officers and men; but nowhere is the total of civilian personnel put down. In the article to which I have alluded the writer has taken the trouble to break down all the various Votes and—
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME)My Lords, I think we must protect the House by putting questions only at this time and not 'making statements.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERYMy Lords, if I am not to be allowed to answer in my own way, I must say that the number of civilians employed under the Admiralty is scandalous in relation to numbers of personnel in the Royal Navy.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, I cannot accept what the noble Earl has said. I have told him that the matter is 1203 under constant observation. The noble Earl has compared uniformed personnel, the figure for which is given in Vote A of the Navy Estimates, with civilian personnel, who are not shown there; but the real control of civilian personnel is finance, and I believe that that is the right control. It would be perfectly simple to put a figure in the Navy Estimates for the number of civilians employed, and, in fact, that is frequently brought out by Parliamentary questioning. There is no secret about it and the noble Earl can debate it at length if he wishes. That is just as much under Parliamentary control as is Vote A, which is a historical matter going back to the time of Cromwell, when it was desired to limit the numbers of the armed forces. But there is no reason at all why Parliamentary control through finance should not be as effective—and I believe it is more effective—than simply stating in the Navy Estimates the number of civilian personnel.
§ LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTONMy Lords, in view of these rather startling figures, could the noble Earl give an assurance that the matter will be the subject of a special review? Secondly, could the noble Earl undertake that, wherever possible, officers who have been prematurely retired will be used in civilian service?
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, I have told the noble Earl that the matter is and will be kept constantly under review. It needs to be kept under constant review. Where possible retired officers will be taken into the Department.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, is the noble Earl the First Lord able to tell us what proportion of the reduction of 10,000 in the number of civilian employees is composed of industrial workers? I rather agree with him on the question of having a Service in which a large part of the building and repairs is done by its own personnel.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, I think it is fair to say that the proportion is about 80 per cent. of the total.