§ Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the decrease of 7,122 in the Royal Naval Reserve between 1st April, 1906, and 1st April, 1909, and a reduction in the Coastguard of 688 during the same period, were compensated for by a corresponding increase in the Royal Fleet Reserve?
§ The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna)The decrease in Royal Naval Reserve ratings during the period named was 6,456. The reduction has been mainly caused by discharging men who completed their fourth, fifth, or sixth periods of enrolment in the Royal Naval Reserve, that is to say, men over 40, instead of allowing them to serve till 50, as previously. The increase of Royal Fleet Reserve during the same period was 4,813, a net reduction in the combined reserves of 1,643. The Coastguard have nothing to do with the number of reserves, and are in no sense reserves; they are part of the active service numbers, and are included in Vote A. Every man reduced for the Coastguard means an extra man available to serve afloat in the fleet.
§ Mr. ASHLEYMay I ask what reduction in naval strength abroad has justified this reduction of over 1,600 in our Naval Reserves?
§ Mr. McKENNAThe hon. Gentleman will see that the larger part of the reduction in the Royal Naval Reserves of 6,000 was caused by the age of 40 instead of SO, and that that was not a real reduction in strength. In actual fighting strength the reduction is only 1,640, and if the hon. Gentleman will put the facts together he will come to the conclusion I certainly have come to that there is no real reduction in fighting strength.
§ Mr. ASHLEYAre we to understand that the Admiralty think that any man over forty is of no use as a reserve man?
§ Mr. McKENNAThat would not be a proper inference to draw.