§ Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether new construction in machinery was undertaken in Devonport Dockyard; if not, would he explain why; whether the work of refitting a repairing ship was always done in the scheduled time, and in cases where delay had taken place was that frequently due to insufficiency in the number of workmen available; if not, would he state to what cause he attributed the delay; was emergency work frequent; and was the present working staff sufficient to cope with the general routine work of the yard?
§ Mr. McKENNAThe reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. The reason asked for in the second part is that the engines and boilers required for the large cruisers and battleships built at Devonport could not be manufactured with the present resources of the yard in time to complete these vessels in two years from the date of laying down. As regards the third part of the question, if, during progress of work, the repairs prove more extensive than expected, there may then be some delay in completion, or, in other words, had the full extent of the requisite repairs been known, a later date for completion would have been taken. The answer to the fourth part is in the negative, and to the fifth in the affirmative.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEIf the answer to the fifth part of the question is in the affirmative, will the right hon. Gentleman tell me why they are constantly taking on men at Devonport Dockyard and sending men away?
§ Mr. McKENNAWe can never at any moment be absolutely sure what amount of repairs will be requisite during the year, and we have to take on men according to the requirements of the service.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEI understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the working staff was sufficient to cope with the general routine work—is that so?
§ Mr. McKENNAThat is so.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEHow does he reconcile the last answer with the answer he gave to the former question?
§ Mr. McKENNAThe general routine work is a certain quantity which we can anticipate. There may be for short periods an excess of that amount or deficiency of that amount, when we have to take in view men and dismiss other men, according to the conditions of the work, which could not be regarded as included in the general ordinary work of the yard.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEArising out of that reply—
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think the hon. Gentleman might be satisfied. He has had four very full answers.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked how many temporary hands are now employed in the works department at Devonport Dockyard; how many have been so employed for a continuous period of fifteen years; how many for twenty years and over; whether he will consider the advisability of extending to men who have been employed continuously in the works department for a long period of years the same privileges as to establishment as are extended to workmen in other departments in the yard; and, if not, will he explain on what ground he justifies a distinction being made?
§ Mr. McKENNAThe number of temporary hands now employed in the works department at Devonport Dockyard is 1,051, of whom fifty-seven have been employed continuously for fifteen years, and thirty-six for twenty years and over. With regard to the last part- of the question, I must refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave him in reply to a similar question on the 13th of this month.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he considers the fifty-seven and thirty-seven men who have been working for fifteen and twenty years respectively should be regarded as temporary men; and whether it would be possible to have them established?
§ Mr. McKENNAI have already fully explained to the hon. Member that the system of working in the works department does not properly permit of the establishment system being introduced. The works department endeavours so far as is possible to re-engage the same men 17 as they have employed before. The result is that in individual cases certain men are employed for a considerable number of years. I do not understand the hon. Member to wish the works department to dismiss those old workmen.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEArising out of that answer—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member must really have some regard to the large number of questions on the Paper.