HC Deb 23 March 1905 vol 143 cc1013-20

"That 129, 000 officers, seamen and boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906, including 20, 211 Royal Marines. "

Resolution read a second time.

MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE (Bristol, E.)

asked for some information upon that part of the charge upon the country which was to a certain extent involved in the Order of Council of the 1st January, 1904. He desired to get from the Civil Lord of the Admiralty a clear statement as to the Vote appended to that Order in Council. The note was as follows— That it is to be understood that in any matter of great importance the First Sea Lord is always to be consulted by the other Sea Lords and by the Parliamentary and Civil Lords.

*MR. SPEAKER

said he did see how this Question arose on this Vote, which was the Vote for men.

MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE

admitted that if he could not move to reduce the number of men at the Admiralty, if he could only move to reduce the number of sea-going men, he would not be in order and he would not pursue the subject.

MR. EUGENE WASON (Clackmannan and Kinross)

asked why the officers in the Navy had to retire at the age of sixty years while officers in the Army had not.

*MR. SPEAKER

said that this discussion must be confined to the simple matter of the Vote.

MR. WHTTLEY

said he would formally move to reduce the Vote by 100 men in order that the hon. Gentleman opposite might explain how it was that the House was now without the second portion of the Return promised by the hon. Gentleman.

*THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Woodbridge)

said the Return was complete and he hoped it would have been in the Vote Office by this time.

MR. WHITLEY

pointed out that if 140 or 160 ships were to be put into the [...]lama class, which was not in being, it must affect the number of men required, and in order that they might have an opportunity of seeing whether the Return was in the Vote Office he would formally move that the Vote be reduced by 100 men if he were in order in so doing.

Amendment proposed— To leave out'129, 000, ' and insert'128, 900'. "—(Mr. Whitey.)

Question proposed, "That '129, 000' stand part of the said Resolution. "

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)

thought that in view of what took place in Committee, the House ought to have been supplied before now with the second part of the Return he had asked for in connection with the redistribution of the Fleet. It immediately affected one question concerning the personnel. In the Memorandum of December 6th, the First Lord stated that from year to year the Admiralty had endeavoured to remedy the evil of a deficient personnel by largely adding to it, but that the increase in the number, size, and horsepower of the ships in commission had more than swallowed up the additions, and that consequently an adequate provision for the ships in the Fleet, Reserve had not yet been made. The fact was that manning had fallen behind construction, and one purpose of the discarding of ships had been to make good the deficiency of men. What he asked for, among other things, was the numbers of the crews of the vessels discarded, and of those retained under the charge of a caretaker, so that they might know how many officers and men had been set free by this new policy.

*MR. PRETYMAN

I can give the hon. Member the figure approximately. It is about 30, 000 for the crews of all the vessels included in the Return. But this does not necessarily represent the number set free by what is referred to as the New Policy.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON,

continuing, said he was not responsible, as had been stated in another place, for the fact that sixteen ships appeared in both parts of the Return. He should like to know how many men were set free from the ships that were to be sold, and how many from the ships that were to be placed in the [...]lama class. Unfortunately they could not on this occasion press for information on other subjects, such as the discrepancy in the amounts to be applied to new construction, which ought to have been given on a previous occasion.

*MR. PRRTYMAN

expressed h s regret that the Return was not available to Members of the House. Ho, completed the Return yesterday, and understood it would be issued to-day, but it-was not yet in the Vote Office. But in any case, the only point it would be in order to discuss on the present occasion, was that referred to by the hon. Member for Dundee with regard to the number of the crews. It was unfortunate that in the Return certain ships should appear under two headings. That had arisen from the fact that the headings under which the Return was moved for were not appropriate, and would not have afforded all the information the hon. Member desired. He therefore communicated with the hon. Member, and at his special request the ships in List 1B were included.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

pointed out that 1B was a new kind of enumeration which appeared in the Dockyard Expense Accounts this year for the first time.

*MR. PRETYMAN

said the whole misunderstanding had arisen from his desire to give the hon. Member the fullest possible information. The ships would have been left out of this class as ships not carrying crews and on which no expenditure would be incurred in respect of repairs, but he understood that the hon. Member desired them to be included in the Return.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

said he did not blame the hon. Gentleman for the misunderstanding, nor did he with to be blamed himself. Speaking at Glasgow the Prime Minister stated that 130 ships would be struck off the Navy List altogether; a day or two before that speech a list of ships appeared in The Times, and what he wanted was a correct list.

*MR. PRETYMAN

said that since the preliminary accounts appeared in The Times certain adjustments had been made, and the Prime Minister distinctly stated that he did not pledge himself to the accuracy of the figures. He could not give the hon. Member detailed information with regard to the crews; he could only say that the total number in respect of all the ships included in the list was altogether 30, 000. It was impossible to say exactly which ships were struck off the combatant list as a result of what was called the New Policy. There had always been the policy of removing from the Navy ships which were out-of date and unfit for effective use, but that naturally led to a considerable waste of money, because it was the duty of the Controller of the Navy to keep in constant readiness for war every ship that might be called upon to fight. There was no half-way house. As might be seen from the Return, considerable expenditure had been incurred in quite recent times upon ships which were shortly afterwards discarded. It had therefore been thought desirable to create an intermediate class, and that was the only point in regard to which there was a new policy. By the creation of that class, it had been rendered possible to keep ships which were not fit for the first fighting line, but which were not so bad that they might not be of use under certain circumstances in case of war. Those ships were to be put aside, no crews would be provided for them or expenditure incurred upon them, and in that way undue waste of money would be avoided He could not give the number of men set free in reference to every ship; he could only state the figure approximately. The Questions asked by hon. Members opposite were perfectly reasonable, and he would be glad to answer them if he could. He would point out, however, that the comparison for which they asked was not between two concrete cases, but between what was to-day and what might have been had this policy not been adopted. To make such a comparison with accuracy was practically impossible, and, as he did not desire to give any inaccurate figures, he hoped hon. Members would be satisfied with the reply he had made and not press for anything more definite.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

asked was the total of the personnel for all the ships being provided for in this case and how much was attributable to ships sold and ships that were not sold?

*MR. PRETYMAN

said there was an actual reduction in the number of the personnel of 2, 100. The reduction was partly owing to the new policy, which was not the policy for one year, but it was to be a continuous policy.

*MR. McCRAE (Edinburgh, E.)

said that last year the personnel was increased by 4, 000 and the total personnel amounted to 131, 000. This year there was a reduction shown of 2, 000, making the total 129, 000. The question he wished to put was whether that was altogether due to the new scheme. If so, then it meant that the total reduction in cost, which was shown at £2, 500, 000, exclusive of £1, 000, 000 for the Chilian ships, was really a reduction of £3, 000, 000, because those 2, 000 men who had been cut off the pay list this year would have meant an increase in ordinary circumstances of £500, 000, as only a half year's pay was voted for the increased numbers last year.

*MR. PRETYMAN

Yes, but not this year. It would mean a reduction in the future. Those 2, 100, if they came on pay, would mean that amount of additional expenditure.

*MR. McCRAE

said he could not follow the hon. Member's argument. He thought this reticence in itself was suspicious, and having regard to what had happened in reference to the Transvaal loan and other similar transactions it was important that they should criticise fully any financial proposals made by the Government. There were 30, 000 men involved in these proposals, although many would be retained. If there was such a large number of men as that he thought the hon. Member opposite must see that the House was entitled to a little more definite information. Really he thought they ought to get, before this Vote was passed, from the hon. Gentleman some rough estimate of the difference in the cost between the new scheme and what it would have cost the country under the old scheme. The Secretary to the Admiralty told them very clearly that they were relaxing their efforts because they had been working up arrears with regard to repairs and maintenance, and economy had resulted from that. The Admiralty must know what economy had resulted from the new scheme. He could not follow the argument of the hon. Member at all.

*MR. PRETYMAN

said it was difficult to define what the hon. Member meant by "economy." Where did economy begin and extra expenditure end? These comparisons were almost impossible to arrive at with any degree of accuracy. What he said was not that 30, 000 men were saved, but that the whole of the crews upon Part I. of the Return was 30, 000. He had nothing to conceal, and he was most anxious to give all the information asked for, but really that information did not exist.