HC Deb 10 July 1900 vol 85 cc1112-3
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY (Yorkshire, W. E., Shipley)

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the recent increase of pay to the engineers of the Fleet is being recouped to the Admiralty by reductions in charge pay to some of the engineers both for cruisers and destroyers; whether charge pay to engineers in charge of machinery of destroyers is to be lowered from 3s. to. 1s. 6d.; and whether there is a scarcity of engineers, so that it has been found necessary to place warrant officers in charge of machinery on three of the destroyers.


. The answer to the first paragraph is in the negative. The maximum rate of charge pay has been reduced, and the whole scale has been recast on the recommendation of the engineer officers themselves, the net result of the changes in regard to pay and allowances of engineer officers generally being, an increased charge to the Crown of £14,000 a year. The future rate of charge pay for de- stroyers will be 2s., and not 1s. 6d. as stated in the question. In accordance with the purpose for which the warrant rank of artificer engineer was created, these officers have been placed in charge of the machinery of a number of smaller vessels, and included in these are four destroyers of the older twenty-seven knot type. Such officers are considered as available engineer officers in the ships to which they are appointed, and such appointment is no indication of a dearth of engineer officers.


But is it not the fact that certain individual engineer officers will receive a less payment for their services by this reduction of pay than they have hitherto received?


Arrangements have been made to prevent any loss, but it is true that the maximum has been reduced to make a better distribution. Certain individuals in the future will receive less than they have been receiving hitherto.