§ 2.35 p.m.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what has been the cost to date of H.M.S. "Blake"; what is the reason for putting her in moth balls; whether this treatment is to be provided for any other ships of the Royal Navy; whether this indicates a further weakening of the strength of the Royal Navy and how long it would take to bring her into commission.]
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON)My Lords, including the current refit, the cost of H.M.S. "Blake's" construction and subsequent dockyard work amounts to date to about £15½ million, nearly £15 million of which was for her construction. The ship is going into reserve because there are temporary manpower shortages in various categories. We have a number of measures in hand to overcome the shortages, but they will take some time to bear fruit. We have already planned that, as new construction and modernised vessels come forward to replace them, other ships of the operational fleet will go into reserve, but, H.M.S. "Blake" apart, the strength of the operational Fleet will remain unimpaired. Moreover, it is my intention that H.M.S. "Blake's" period in reserve shall be temporary. How long it will take to bring her into commission again will depend upon our success in overcoming shortages and upon the testing and tuning work to be done. We are looking at this.
§ EARL HOWEMy Lords, May I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that, since I put this Question on the Order 234 Paper, it has been stated by the Admiralty, according to the Press, that 16 more ships are to be scrapped or otherwise dealt with? Is the noble Lord able to say anything about those ships?
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, the sixteen ships which have been approved for scrapping, are referred to in this year's Explanatory Statement. I think the noble Earl must realise that as new ships are built and come forward, old ships, second-class ships, are not needed in the operational Fleet and if they are not bought by other people they are scrapped.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether by "temporary" he means twelve months, eighteen months or a period that is less?—because if it is less I should have thought it would be more advantageous to put on a crew to hold the ship in readiness for use rather than to cocoon her. May I put one further question? In view of the many statements made in the Press on defence matters, is the noble Lord aware of a report in a national newspaper that it is intended to scrap 58 vessels, not merely the 16 referred to in the Estimates, and can the noble Lord say whether or not that report is accurate?
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, if I may take the second question first, I really do not know where this figure of 58 comes from. I can only judge that it must include some ships which have been scrapped and are at the breakers yards, some of the 16 which are mentioned in the Explanatory Statement and some which are still in the operational Fleet. Otherwise, so far as I know, the figure has no validity whatever. With regard to the first question, I should not like to commit myself as to what is meant by "temporary". It will be as short a period as possible. The difficulty about a ship of the complexity of the "Blake" is that unless the gun armament is treated very carefully it deteriorates very quickly.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, can the noble Lord say that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to scrap more vessels than those listed in the Navy Estimates presented this month?
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, the vessels listed in the Navy Estimates pre- 235 sented this month were approved for scrapping last year. There will be further scrappings during the course of the year—something between 10 and 16, something of that order—for this current year, as new ships come forward.
LORD TEYNHAMMy Lords, arising out of the noble Lord's reply, would it not be possible, in the case of "Blake", to put on a skeleton crew so that she could be re-commissioned more easily in an emergency?
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, we are looking into that point.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, on the question of shortage of personnel with regard to "Blake", the figures in the service of the Navy, according to Vote A, are slightly higher at the present time than twelve months ago. Is any ration being put on the First Lord with regard to the number of men he may have? Surely there has been no shortage of volunteers to join the Navy.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, perhaps I might elaborate for one moment on the reasons for the temporary shortage. There are four main reasons why we have put H.M.S. "Blake" into reserve: the first is that the run-down in Malta has gone considerably more slowly, as a result of Government negotiations, than was anticipated. That means that we shall be between 400 and 500 men short by the end of this year, representing the numbers we expected to get from Malta. Secondly, we have in commission "Albion", in addition to the planned Fleet, with only the same number of men as we had for the planned Fleet without "Albion." Thirdly, new ships have been coming forward much more quickly than we thought. Fourthly, we have temporary shortages in the electrical world. These cruisers, of course, take a great many men highly skilled in electronics and electrics. If we could overcome that shortage we should be all right. This arises out of a shortfall in their recruitment two or three years ago.
§ EARL HOWEMy Lords, does the noble Lord say the same thing about "Bermuda?" Is "Bermuda" going to be scrapped for the same reason?
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I think "Bermuda" is on the Sales List—I am not quite sure. But it would not be for the same reason. The reason why "Bermuda" is not needed is that we plan to have three cruisers in commission and another in operational reserve; and that is what we have decided the size of the Fleet should be.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, is it not a fact that "Bermuda" at present appears among the four ships in reserve? Is it in reserve or not? We have been told now it is "on the sales list". May I ask about these ships placed in reserve? Could not some better use be made of the later ships? You still have the "Sheffield", the "Birmingham", the "Bermuda"; you have had more modern ships than that, the "Swiftsure" and similar ships. All these seem to have gone and been scrapped. Why do we keep the older ships?
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, the reason for that is that the technical advances are now very swift indeed and ships soon get out of date. It was decided some five or six years ago what the ultimate shape of the Royal Navy would be in 1962–63. We have now got to that ultimate shape. It provides for three cruisers in commission and one in operational reserve. It takes a great number of men to maintain a ship in reserve, and it costs a great deal of money to refit an old cruiser up to any kind of operational standard; and as the ships are not needed it is better to scrap them.