§ 1. "That a sum not exceeding £7,129,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Wages, etc., to Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909."
§ Question again proposed.
914§ MR. BARNES (Glasgow, Blackfriars)said he wished to call attention to the system of training naval officers, and especially the training of the engineer staff, but if it was convenient to the House he was willing to defer it till a later stage. Perhaps the Secretary to the Admiralty would take Vote 5 at an early day, and he could then bring the matter forward.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONI think it would be most convenient to take the discussion on Vote 5 at an early day, and I will undertake that it shall be placed first on the Paper. I hope that will be satisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. BARNESQuite, and I will defer the observations I desire to make until that occasion.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid that in the Committee there were some effective speeches made on the question of the reduction of the Coastguard, but no satisfactory assurance was obtained from the Admiralty that they intended to alter their policy with regard to the decrease of the Coastguard. Last year the number of the Coastguard was 3,903. This year it is 3,540. Nobody would deny that the Coastguard were excellent men and did their work in the best possible way, and that it would be difficult to replace them. After all they numbered under 4,000 last year, and he could not see the necessity for this insane desire to make a small saving by this reduction. In fact, he did not know what the saving came to.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONNothing.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid that under those circumstances he failed to see the reason for it. He had not a very high opinion of the administrative ability of 915 hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite before, but he had still less when he found this fine body of men were being reduced for no object whatever. He rose for the purpose of opposing this reduction, and he hoped before it was sanctioned good reason would be given for it.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONreminded the hon. Baronet that he fully-explained in Committee the policy of the Admiralty on this matter. The reductions, which were being effected by natural wastage, would take place only on those stations where the men were serving no purpose—naval, life-saving, or rocket apparatus. There would be no financial saving, inasmuch as the places of these men, who were semi-active, would be taken by men on the active service list. The First Lord of the Admiralty had promised in another place to make public the Report of the Interdepartmental Committee on the coastguard. The Admiralty would not adopt the Report—they were pursuing a totally different policy on this question—but it had been thought well that it should be made public.
§ MR. FELL (Great Yarmouth)said that in the previous debate on this question it was stated that some of the smaller stations would be closed; that the cottages would be let and that the men would be replaced by naval men. What he wished to know was, was the patrolling of the coast going to be performed as it used to be by men who on previous occasions had proved most useful? He had known cases where people who had got into difficulties had been rescued simply becaue they had been seen when these men were patrolling the coast in the course of their duty. If the coast was to be patrolled as formerly, how was the patrol to be arranged when these stations were closed?