§ Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he could see his way to approximate more closely the wages of skilled labourers in the royal dockyards to the wages of skilled labourers doing similar work for private firms; whether, in view of the discrepancy at present existing, he would consider whether it would promote efficiency in the yards if the minimum rate of pay for day work for hired skilled labourers was raised from 22s. to 26s. per week and the maximum from 28s. to 30s. per week; whether he was aware that the present rate of pay for ordinary labourers at the royal dockyards is 21s. per week, whereas for similar work at Cardiff, Leeds, Leicester, and London, public bodies pay their ordinary labourers 25s., 26s., 28s. 3d., and 29s. 3d., respectively; and whether he would consider the advisability of raising the weekly pay for established ordinary labourers to 23s. 6d. per week, and of hired ordinary labourers to 24s. per week?
§ Mr. McKENNAThe question of the rates of pay of skilled labourers and labourers employed in His Majesty's dockyards has recently been under consideration in connection with petitions received from the workmen, and in regard to which members of the Board of Admiralty received deputations of the workmen at interviews at the several dockyards. The replies to the various requests made by the workmen are now being prepared and will be promulgated to the workmen shortly; in the meantime it is not considered expedient to discuss the arguments urged in support of the requests or to forestall the replies.
§ Mr. REESMay I ask whether in addition to improving the position of the skilled labourers first and second grade storehousemen and sawyers at Devonport Dockyard, he will do something for the log rollers of that establishment?
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether he would consider the advisability of removing the present limited classification in respect to skilled labourers in the Royal dockyards and arranging for competent workmen (both established and hired) to rise to the maximum rates of pay by increments, granted annually, of 1s. per week; and whether, in view of the small number of skilled labourers borne on the establishment and to the substitution of other hands when filling vacancies caused by retirement, he would cause all vacancies to be filled by men of the same class as those creating the vacancies?
§ Mr. McKENNABoth these subjects have been raised by the workmen concerned in their petitions to the Admiralty, to which replies are now being prepared. It is not deemed expedient to anticipate the replies to the workmen.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether he will explain why, when a first-grade storehouse man vacates his post, a second-grade storehouse man is often appointed to that post without necessarily receiving any rise in pay?
§ Mr. McKENNAAs stated in reply to the hon. Member on the 21st of this month, the growth and development of the supply services necessitates reallocation of the charges from time to time as their importance increases or diminishes, and a possible consequent change of duties as between the two grades. I have nothing to add to that.
Sir C. KINLOCH COOKEMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has answered the point which I put to him, namely, whether he will explain why when a first-grade storehouse man vacates his-post, a second-grade storehouse man is often appointed to the post without necessarily receiving any rise in pay? That is what I want answered.
§ Mr. McKENNAWhen a post which was held by a first-grade storehouse man, in consequence of the reduction of the number of stores in charge becomes a post suitable for a second-grade storeman, I have explained very fully to the hon. Member that in such a case as that, when the first grade storehouse post is diminished and reduced in importance, and a second-grade storehouse man succeeds the first, there would not be necessarily any increase of pay to the second-grade storehouse man.
§ Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, seeing that provision is made in the Naval Estimates for 1910–11 for an establishment of 5,928 men in the Royal dockyards, and no more, he will say whether any negotiations have passed between the Admiralty and the Treasury on the question of increasing the establishment since that number was settled; whether the total number now authorised is the same as the number stated in the Naval Estimates, and, if not, what is the number now authorised; and whether Treasury approval had been received to the reopening of the establishment before the day of the election at Devonport last January?
§ Mr. McKENNAThe Admiralty has been for some time past in communication with the Treasury on the question of resuming the establishment for workmen. As a result of that correspondence, it has been decided to resume the establishment, but as to what the revised total number of established places is to be, I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question on 18th April. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.