§ Mr. Parkerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether seaman-rating candidates for commissions who, after taking the special nine months' course for commissioned rank, pass both the educational and professional examinations but are rejected by the Final Selection Board or the Admiralty, are considered to have qualified in educational subjects and in seamanship for warrant rank or not; and, if not, whether he will revise the regulations to remove the anomaly that a rating who has passed these two examinations for commissioned rank is not considered to be qualified in these two subjects for the junior grade of warrant rank?
§ Mr. ShakespeareThe reply to the former part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative; the latter part of the question therefore does not arise.
§ Mr. Parkerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state the disposal of the 14 seamen ratings who, out of the 31 candidates for 2112W commissions, were this year rejected; the ratings at present held; the number who have been put on course for warrant rank and for what rank; and the number who have been sent to sea as leading seamen to obtain recommendatioons for warrant rank, though they have already been recommended and passed the Fleet Selection Board for commissioned rank; and whether the latter ratings would now have been further ahead for warrant rank if they had not taken the special nine months' course for a commission?
§ Mr. ShakespeareOf the 14 ratings in question nine were rated Acting Petty Officer, placed on the roster for Gunner and are now undergoing the course for that rank. Two were sent to sea as Acting Petty Officers and three were sent to sea as Leading Seamen. These five ratings would not have been better placed for promotion to Warrant rank if they had not taken the special course for commissioned rank.