I will, with permission, make a statement regarding the effect of the proposed reductions in manpower of the Navy, more especially as regards the Home Fleet. It is anticipated that the strength of the Navy at 31st March, 1948, will be 147,000, and it is hoped that it will remain steady at or about that figure throughout the following year. The consequences of this more rapid run-down from the previously planned strength of 178,000, as at 31st March, 1948, will, of course, be appreciable, especially during the next few months. It was, however, after deliberate consideration of the relative advantages and disadvantages of making the reductions quickly at the expense of temporary dislocation but with earlier reorganisation, or of spreading over a longer period, that the Admiralty advised, and the Government approved, that the Naval reductions should take place by 31st March, 1948.

To effect the reductions in naval numbers, if reasonable strength overseas is to be preserved and fairness maintained in releasing men abroad pari passu with those at home, it is necessary to draw trained men from the Home Fleet and other Home Stations to relieve men on Foreign Service. This process does involve temporary immobilisation of a considerable part of the Home Fleet. It is, however, essential that this term "immobilisation" should not be mis- understood. With one exception, the ships are being maintained in commission. Some will be kept fully operational; others will be subject to such substantial changes in their ships' companies that they cannot proceed to sea at once. In some instances this period of immobility will be quite short. In others it may be a matter of some months. But, so long as the ships are kept in commission, they can be restored to a full operational condition as soon as the manning adjustments in their complements have been completed.

This period of temporary immobility will be restricted to the absolute minimum. If, during its continuance, there should be any emergency, it would be possible to bring back to full commission a considerable number of the ships concerned at relatively short notice; in addition, at all times, there will be two modern battleships and at least two modern aircraft carriers, with other ancillary craft, maintained in commission and engaged on sea-training duties in Home Waters. Moreover, the Mediterranean Fleet is being maintained virtually at full strength.

To put the matter in its proper perspective, I would inform the House that, when this period of temporary re-adjustment has been completed, of the ships now comprising the Home Fleet only one, a cruiser, will have been reduced to reserve.

What is the actual strength of the Home Fleet at the present time? Is it true, as was stated in an announcement by the B.B.C. before the week-end, and consequently repeated to the Press of the world, that the Home Fleet consists of only one cruiser and four destroyers at the present time? That is the first question I would venture to ask. The right hon. Gentleman, as a result of the statement he has made, has thrown very little light on the position.

To talk of the strength of the Home Fleet—it will consist of the ships I have already indicated which will still remain in commission. They have been under orders to return to their ports for readjustments of their complements, and for taking trained men sent abroad to relieve trained men who will be due for demobilisation pari passu with men at home under the new scheme. The strength of the Home Fleet at the time the order was given was one battleship, five cruisers and 12 destroyers, apart from the very large training squadrons, including battleships, destroyers, frigates and others which remain in being. The Home Fleet will have an emergency striking force during this temporary period of readjustment of one cruiser and four battle class destroyers. I have indicated that the period of immobility in the case of the ships now having adjustments in their complements will in some cases be short, and that a large part of them can be brought to a state of operational efficiency in a comparatively short time.

On what authority was this statement made by the B.B.C.? On whose authority was it stated that the Home Fleet would be reduced to what is called a "striking force" of one cruiser and four battle destroyers—not battleships? On whose authority was this statement, so likely to be injurious to our interests all over the world, put up?

It was certainly not put up by the Minister of Defence or the Board of Admiralty. I imagine that the B.B.C. got their news from a Press agency.

Should I be in Order, Mr. Speaker, in asking leave to move the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the reduction in strength of the Home Fleet immediately available for service to one cruiser and four destroyers?

I am afraid that the hon. Member would not be in Order. During this period the prerogative to choose Amendments is mine. I have the right to choose an Amendment after what I have heard, and that prerogative should not be taken away from me.

Does that mean that in no circumstances whatever are we entitled during the Debate on the Address to avail ourselves of the provisions of Standing Order No. 8?

It is quite obvious that in this case we can discuss the matter on the King's Speech. It is for me to select Amendments to the King's Speech, and if I do not choose to allow matters of definite urgency and public importance, I can do it on that ground, because I must take into account whether the particular matter is likely to be debated in the near future. Therefore, I am bound to refuse on that ground.

Surely, it is provided by Standing Order No. 8 that if a matter comes within the strict terms of the definition of the Standing Order, it remains for you, Mr. Speaker, to rule whether it comes within the terms of the Order, and then, if 40 Members rise, the House has the right to debate it?

I am afraid that the hon. Member is wrong. I also have to take into consideration whether the matter is likely to be debated in the near future. That is a matter for my consideration, and I can rule it out on that ground, which I do in this case.

Do I understand you to rule, Mr. Speaker, that this matter is likely to come up in debate in the immediate future, because if not, I ask whether or not it is a sufficient answer to an application under Standing Order No. 8 that the matter may conceivably come up for debate?

I think the hon. Member might have listened to what I said previously. I was going to call the speakers on this subject during the Debate, but whether I call the Amendment or not is a matter which remains for my consideration. The matter is going to be raised in Debate later. That is quite obvious.

I should like to ask the Minister of Defence why this unauthorised report was not in the first place immediately corrected, because great harm was done to our interests all over the world by the idea that we had only one cruiser and four destroyers maintained in our Home Fleet. I should also like to ask how it is, if this is to be the case for the time being, with over 170,000 men at present, and working on the basis of 140,000 men on Vote A right up to the end of the next financial year, which appears in the statement the right hon. Gentleman has just made, and with an expenditure of £180 million, or something like that, he is not able to maintain in commission a proper squadron of ships, with battleships and so forth, during this period? Is the failure of the Government to do that not a proof of the gross mismanagement and incompetence which has characterised the control of the Fighting Forces since the war, and, I am sorry to say, afflicted the right hon. Gentleman's administration.

I am not sure how long I am entitled to speak, but the statement which I have put in is in courtesy to the House and in response to questions. May I say on the first point as to what appeared in the Press and why it was not immediately corrected, it was because—[Interruption.] It certainly was not true in all its aspects as it appeared in the Press, and certainly not in accordance with the statement I have just made. It is a matter of regret that Members of the Opposition should adopt the Press story as if it must be true, but that is a matter which can be dealt with at greater length in Debate. With regard to the second point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, we have debated this matter, in which I know he is very interested, on previous occasions. The short answer is twofold. First, in the tremendous period of re-sortment and adjustment in the last 18 months, running from 880,000 to less than 150,000 men, there have had to be so many devoted to shore-training, demobilisation work and the rest that we cannot have the same number of ships maimed and afloat. No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman—because he had great experience of it in the war—of the tremendous growth that has taken place in the size of the smaller class of ship, and consequently in the variety of armaments and equipment, which means a larger number of men in each of the ships to be manned.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be willing to give us a white paper showing the ships that are to be maintained in commission in the next three or six months, and the scale of complement for these ships? It is not necessary to have wartime complements in time of peace. Will he agree to issue a White Paper on this point, if I put down a Question specifying the headings?

The question of the information which in future should be supplied in the Service Estimates has been under discussion, and I shall be glad to discuss through the usual channels what arrangements can be made in that respect. At present I am not in a position to pledge that I will give full details in a white paper until I have taken other and security measures into consideration.

Is this not a novel and new precedent in time of peace? Since when have we not had a full statement, even in times more immediately dangerous than this, of the ships in commission of the Royal Navy—in the different stages of commission, first, second or third scale?

I am not in a position this afternoon to promise a white paper of the kind requested by the right hon. Gentleman. I promise that I will keep in touch through the usual channels on this matter, which we have discussed before, as to the extent of the information to be released.

Can the Minister of Defence say whether we are to understand from the figures he has given us today and the figures which the Prime Minster gave us on Tuesday that the Navy has experienced an overall cut of 31,000 out of a cut of 70,000 for the three Services?

No. I do not think that would bear examination when we go into details.

What are the figures?

The figures are 178,300 on the figure which was originally planned for 1948, reduced to 147,000. The strength of the Royal Air Force is being reduced on 31st March next to 263,000, and the army, whose original figure was 590,000 for 31st March next, is being reduced to 527,000 and would be reduced much more quickly but for the commitments which it must meet, arising out of the aftermath of war.

The Minister of Defence in his description of the vessels retained has said nothing about submarines. Is he aware that submarines are still carrying on exercises in the Firth of Clyde? Will he bear in mind that there is another opinion in this country, and we do not expect him at this stage of controversy to be bullied or browbeaten in any way?

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas:

Is the Minister aware that the number of ships in commission is already given in the Navy List, which is available in the Library of the House, and in view of that, why cannot these details be released to the general public?

I do not, therefore, understand the reason for the demand.

On behalf of many back benchers, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he is prepared to make an explanation to his own followers as to the reason why he accepted a reduction in the personnel of the Navy to the figures proposed by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) 18 months ago?

I have not had the privilege of seeing the right hon. Gentleman's statement, but I have heard what he has said. Do I understand that there will be a point in the next few weeks or months at which the strength of the Channel Fleet will be only one cruiser and four destroyers?

The hon. Gentleman will see from the statement that the ships to which I referred will be at sea at all times during that period, and we can at short notice send into operation other ships at present in the course of adjustment.

Will the Minister of Defence give some information about the strength of the South Atlantic Fleet, whose condition is even worse than that of the Home Fleet?

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has been a student of naval history in peace time for the last 25 years; but whenever has there been, in peace time, a large Fleet in the South Atlantic?

What is the strength of that Fleet?

Can the right hon. Gentleman give the state of readiness of these ships?

These ships are engaged in active training and there are a large number of new ratings, both National Service and Regular enlistments, in various categories of ships which I have not included in my statement and before that side of it can be ready for operation, obviously it would require some attention.