LORD ASHBOURNEMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what important steps they are taking, apart from advertising and the recent substantial improvement in pay, to improve recruiting in the Navy.]
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE, R.A.F. (LORD WINTERBOTTOM)My Lords, we are constantly examining how the recruiting organisation can be made more effective. We seek too to enhance the long term appeal of the naval career by improvements in the whole field of conditions of service apart from pay. I would draw the atten 1236 tion of the noble Lord to two examples, which have recently been made public. Discussions are going well on the introduction of an InService Degree for young General List Officers in the seaman or supply and secretariat specialisations; and for ratings we shall later this year be introducing the warrant officer rank.
LORD ASHBOURNEMy Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he not think that if the paying off of the carriers was postponed, it would demonstrate to everybody that the Royal Navy has passed the bottom of a dangerously low curve, and that this in itself would have a marked and beneficial effect on recruiting?
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, I think that is way outside the ambit of the noble Lord's Question. There are many fields in which new developments are coming and which are much more significant than the carrier question. I think that the retention of the carriers would have no effect on recruitment at all.
LORD ASHBOURNEMy Lords, may I put the question in another way? Would not the Minister agree that apart, perhaps, from the Polaris submarine, the carriers axe easily the largest and most powerful ships in the fleet; that their paying off is bound to result in a lessening of pride and enthusiasm for the Navy, and that this in turn will be bad for recruiting?
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, I should have thought that the Royal Navy was a forward-looking organisation and not a backward-looking one. After all, the carriers have played their part during their timespan in the Navy and I think that they are now becoming obsolete weapons of war.
§ SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: NO.
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMThat is the view of Her Majesty's Government, and I do not think that their retention would affect recruiting. In fact, their retention would adversely affect the manning of other types of ships.
LORD INGLEWOODMy Lords, carriers apart, would not the noble Lord agree that the fewer ships we have, the 1237 less likely it is that the recruiting figures for the Navy are going to be satisfactory?
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, so long as we can match men to ships, the object of the exercise is satisfactorily achieved. We shall not be able to match men to ships if we retain the carriers.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, carriers and controversy apart, would not the noble Lord agree that the best way, the surest way, of improving Naval recruiting is for Her Majesty's Government to manifest their determination to maintain (his country as a major maritime nation of the first rank?
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, I can see no evidence to the contrary.