§ 1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £784.300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of half-pay, reserved, and retired pay to officers of the Navy and Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904."
§ MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)said he thought it very extraordinary that that Vote should be put in the forefront of the business that day, and he hoped the Prime Minister would not press it. Of course the House ought to meet all the reasonable requests of the Government for Votes to enable them to carry on their work, and to supply the money required for their immediate wants, but certainly he could not agree with the suggestion that more than Vote A and Vote 1 were absolutely required. It was all very well to say that the Non-effective Votes were non-contentious, but there was no certainty that they did not require discussion. He wanted to raise a constitutional question and to show that there was no necessity to take these Votes at once.
§ MR. LOUGH said that in order to elicit some explanation from the Government he would move to report Progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Lough.)
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J BALFOUR, Manchester E.)said the hon. Member, he was sure, would feel that this was a motion which ought not to be pressed. It was a question not of the convenience of the Government, but the convenience of the House. These Votes were required in order to fulfil the statutory obligations of the House in regard to financial business, and in order to avoid the necessity of bringing in a Ways and Means Bill a few weeks before 1114 the Appropriation Bill, at a period of the session when the House was very pressed in finishing the necessary work of the year.
The only remaining question was whether this was a convenient way of getting this money; he ventured to think it was. These Votes involved no question of principle; they were automatic and had no connection with the naval policy involved. He thought under these circumstances the House might well follow the precedents set in previous years and pass these Votes without discussion.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)protested against what was practically a Vote on Account for the Navy being taken in this way. The only reason for a Vote on Account was to find money to go on with at the commencement of the financial year. That was not necessary with regard to the Navy, because the Votes which the Government had already obtained gave them one-sixth of the whole of the money required for the Navy, and the whole necessity for taking a Vote on Account disappeared. With eight weeks supply the Government were abundantly supplied. The Committee would remember that there had only been a day and a half given to the general discussion of the Army Estimates, and he reminded the Committee that the main increase fell on Vote 8, and, that being so, he appealed to the Government not to take these Votes now, but postpone them and allow the Committee to discuss Vote 8 at an early date.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR said if it would conciliate hon. Members opposite he would undertake to bring up Vote 8 for discussion on the day most convenient for hon. Members and their friends to discuss it. It was important that the Government should get this money for the purpose of avoiding a Ways and Means Bill. The hon. Member opposite thought this system of obtaining this money was not the right one, but that view was based on the old methods of procedure before the new method of obtaining Supply was adopted. This was no doubt practically a Vote on Account, and in those days it was very necessary that the Votes on Account 1115 should be limited, other the Governments might take a vote of account and not touch the Estimates for the rest of the session. That procedure had all been altered; the Government was now obliged every week to submit itself to the criticism of the House, and they left the House to choose the subject for criticism. He thought that hon. Gentlemen ought to be content with the statement that Vote 8 should be brought in on the day most convenient to those who desired to discuss it. He appealed to the House not to interfere with the present procedure of the House.
*MR. BUCHANAN (Perthshire, E.)thought that if the Committee allowed those Votes to go through without a protest now they would be told in future years that a precedent had been created; that they had accepted the principle and recognised the reasonableness of the practice that the Government must obtain these Votes before the 31st of March in order to keep them going two or three months.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR said the hon. Member argued this question as if the Government could prevent these matters being discussed. That was not the case; they could always be discussed.
§ *MR. BUCHANAN said when the money was obtained, whatever the result of a future discussion might be, it would not alter the fact that the control of the House was gone. That was a principle he did not agree with.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)said there was some inconvenience in taking these automatic Votes before Votes "A" and "1" had been disposed of, but the argument of the First Lord of the Treasury was a very weighty one. Before the 31st of March the Government must have some money to go on with, and that money must be covered by a Vote of this House. As a matter of fact, these Non-effective Votes were not usually discussed, and it was necessary that the Government should get the money, and if this Motion to report Progress was withdrawn, the question of the Army could be discussed. He would point out that the real question to be discussed on the Army Vote was the Navy; the two questions had to be taken together and when they attacked the Army they were defending the Navy, 1116 and he would much rather have the debate on the Army than take a long discussion on these Non-effective Votes.
*MR. KEARLEY (Devonport)thought that the hon. Member for King's Lynn had overlooked the fact that there were matters of great substance to be discussed on the Non-effective Votes, and matters which ought to be discussed. What he complained of was that the understanding arrive I at with the Prime Minister had not been kept. That arrangement was that Votes "1" and "A" should be put down, and those Votes alone. But last night, when the hon. Member for Wellington found he could not get these Votes through, he had placed them first in the orders of the day, and the result was the hon. Gentlemen opposite would be despoiled of their opportunity of discussing the Army Vote, because he himself had a very important matter to bring forward on Vote 14 of these Non-effective Votes.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon)did not know whether anything in the nature of an absolute agreement was entered into, but when his right hon. friend was stating what it would be necessary for the Government to have, he distinctly heard him include these Votes.
§ MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)said the real objection was that the House were asked to vote, practically without discussion, a sum of £2,400,000. In the present condition of the finances of the country the Government ought not to ask for such a sum without affording the House a fair opportunity for criticism.
§ MR. LOUGH suggested that the Government should take Vote 13, and leave over for the present Votes 14 and 15.
§ MR. RITCHIE said he was prepared to postpone Vote 14, if the Committee would give Votes 13 and 15.
§ *MR. KEARLEY said he had a question to raise on Vote 15 also.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
1117§ 2. £350,100, Civil Pensions and Gratuities.
§ *MR. KEARLEY said he desired to call attention to the disparity between the number of established men in Government civil employment in the dockyards and the number of hired men. There had been a very large increase in employment but no corresponding increase in the establishment. The word "hired" as applied to Government workmen was more or less of a misnomer, because the men were practically permanently employed, and many of them remained in the Government service until they reached the age limit of sixty years.
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, N.)asked how the matter was relevant to the Vote, which dealt only with men who had left the Service.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON said his hon. friend desired to argue that the number of men entitled to pensions should be larger, but the number could be increased only by increasing the establishment. He submitted that that point was relevant to the Vote.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER pointed out out that if they were to be allowed to discuss the position of persons not on the Vote they might discuss every single institution in the Navy.
§ *MR. KEARLEY submitted that this was the only Vote on which the question of the number on the establishment could be raised, and it was most unfair to try to dispose of the discussion on a point of order.
§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN ruled that the hon. Member could discuss only the question of the pensions of men who had left the dockyards.
§ *MR. KEARLEY said he could raise the whole question by referring only to men who had left the service. He would take the case of a man who had been in the Government service forty years and was now on pension. Under the Superannuation Act he had forty-sixtieths of his average emoluments for the last three 1118 years in the Service. There was another man who had been employed just as long as a "hired" man and gone out of the Service and had received a gratuity. He had been in the Government employment precisely the same time, but his gratuity was only on the basis of one week's wages for every year served. That was the grievance of a man who had served the Government equally as faithfully. He brought this matter forward on behalf of those now serving, and who would find themselves in a similar predicament at the end of their career. The policy of the Admiralty was to have established men. They wanted to have men they could rely upon under all conditions. In war time or some other time there might be a very great demand for labour outside the Government yards, and unless the Admiralty had a hold on the men, such as they had on the established men, they would lose them. Owing to the very large increase in the Navy the employment in the Government yards had enormously increased, but the number of men established had been altogether disproportionate to the old ratio which prevailed ten years ago. There were 25,689 hired men employed by the Government, and only 6,136 established men. Could the Civil Lord give any assurance that the disparity would be altered I It had been put before the Admiralty over and over again, and what amounted almost to an undertaking was given last year, when a deputation waited on the First Lord, that this question would be inquired into. He did not raise this question in any obstructive spirit, but he thought he was entitled to ask the Admiralty if they had come to any decision on this very important question.
*MR. REGINALD LUCAS (Portsmouth)supported the hon. Member for Devonport, and said that the only way in which the discrepancy could be remedied was by increasing the number of established men.
§ GENERAL LAURIE (Pembroke and Haverfordwest)said this arrangement was all right when they had simply a boom, and they were going to get rid of a large number of men, but now the hired men were required as 1119 much as the establishment men, and it would be better to have the establishment increased so that all the men should be placed on the same footing.
§ MR. PRETYMAN (Suffolk, Woodbridge)said this matter had been most carefully considered by the Admiralty. It was quite true that the numbers in the dockyards had largely increased, and that the number of hired men and establishment men had not been increased in proportion. It should be remembered that a portion of this pension was in the nature of deferred pay, and it should also be borne in mind that the hired men got 21s. and the establishment men 20s.
§ *MR. KEARLEY said that the men only got 19s. a week, and this was one of the greatest scandals that existed.
§ MR. PRETYMANThat may be so at Devonport.
§ *MR. KEARLEY said that was the case everywhere.
§ MR. PRETYMAN said what he meant to convey was that 1s. per week more was allowed to the hired labourer than to the establishment labourer. Therefore the hired men got the higher wage during their service. He assured the Committee that this matter was being carefully considered by the Admiralty, although he was not in a position to announce their decision.
§ *MR. KEARLEY said that under those circumstances he would not press the matter further at this moment, although he could not forget that the hon. Member gave the Committee practically the same assurance last year, but he would expect to know the decision of the Admiralty when Vote 8 came up for discussion.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.