§ Postponed proceeding on Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,541,500, be-granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Personnel for Shipbuilding, 1073 Repairs, Maintenance, etc., including the cost of Establishments of Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912."
§ Question again put. Debate resumed.
Major GUESTWhen the Debate was interrupted, I was trying to impress upon the First Lord of the Admiralty the necessity of adjusting the differences which prevail among men who join the dockyards as apprentices and those who join without being apprenticed. A man who joins as an apprentice, when eventually he has worked out his time and comes forward for pension, finds himself seriously handicapped, inasmuch as his service for pension does not count until the expiry of his service as an apprentice. I know the Government have been approached with a view to putting this question right, and I hope they may see their way to reconsider their decision on the matter. I think their only contention is that there has been a rule in the service for the last sixty years whereby apprentice service never had been allowed to count towards pension, and I hope now they may see their way to do justice to these men and allow their apprenticed service to count.
Next I desire to review, for one moment, the serious disadvantages under which hired men stand in His Majesty's dockyards on retirement. An established man, having finished his service, is entitled to a bonus and an additional allowance as well as a pension from the Government. The men themselves fully realise that it is not possible for all of them to come on to the establishment, but they think something more should be done than is done at present to help the men who have not the good fortune to get on to the establishment. It is especially hard on these men because, when they leave the service at sixty or sixty-one years of age, they are too old to get employment in any private firm, and they are unable to leave their service at an earlier period, because if they do so they lose the bonus to which they are entitled when they complete the full service, unless, indeed, it is a question of sickness or reduction of numbers. These men, who are on the hired list, are not able to have an insurance for the years between the time of leaving the dockyard and the period when they may get an old age pension. They may possibly receive, on leaving the dockyard, a bonus of £60, and that certainly is not enough to maintain them during 1074 the ten years which must elapse before they become entitled to an. old age pension. These men on the hired list would willingly contribute towards some pension which might be given them on retiring, and I hope the Government will seriously consider whether it is not possible to frame some insurance scheme on their behalf. I understand that there is no provision in the National Insurance Bill which will meet their case. I finally would like to say a word with regard to the petitions sent from the dockyards to the Admiralty. I would suggest that they be sent in at some fixed period and that the replies should be received from the Admiralty within say one month of the time the following petition should go in. I ask the Admiralty to investigate those questions, as I feel sure that by so doing they will increase the satisfaction of the men employed in the dockyards.
Sir GILBERT PARKERI am glad to see on the Front Bench a right hon. Gentleman (Colonel Seely) who takes a very deep interest in the question I wish to raise. I think it has been a misfortune that since the beginning of the discussions on a Naval Estimate during the early part of this year, and particularly before the Imperial Conference met, nothing important has been said either on the Government or on this side of the House to draw a reply on the question of the cooperation of our Colonies in naval matters. But it is never too late to mend, and I think the Committee will do well to consider for a moment the very great changes which have taken place during the last three years in the attitude of our Dominions over the seas towards the Imperial Navy. This afternoon the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lee) certainly did refer to the question of Dominion navies. I hope the hon. Member who is in charge of the Navy estimates at the present moment will be able to answer some of the questions I am about to put, and which I hope will not be considered indiscreet.
It is not my desire to ask anything improper. Like my hon. Friend (Mr. Lee) I was for a long time strongly in favour of each Dominion or Colony contributing directly to the Imperial Navy, under the idea that one great Navy for all the Empire, having the co-operation of every part of the Empire and constitute the policy which would be in the interests not only of our over-seas Dominions, but of this country and of the Empire at large. 1075 But we are living in a democratic age. I am in sympathy with the proper exercise of democratic principles, and I understand what the Prime Minister of Canada said to me some years ago. I am committing no breach of confidence in repeating it. He said, when I urged upon him the advisability and the duty of contributing directly by a money grant to the Imperial Exchequer for naval purposes:—
I represent a democratic Government, I can go to that Government and ask them for money, which we shall spend ourselves and the administration of which we still control, to any extent, provided I can prove that the cause is a good one and is necessary for the honour and integrity of the country, but I cannot go to my Government, to my Parliament, and to the people, and ask them for contributions over which we have no control.But he added, and he said it in the most patriotic way, and I believe the most patriotic intention:—Show us what we ought to do here in the Dominion in order to preserve the Empire and this portion of the Empire, within the lines of Admiralty policy, and you will find that we will respond adequately to the request, but not the demand.I say it is no breach of confidence to repeat these words, because there lay behind them a statement of the subsequent policy of the Dominion of Canada and of the Dominion of Australia, and of the Dominion of New Zealand, and I hope and trust there lay behind them also the policy of South Africa.10.0 P.M.
I think that as long as the Dominions are willing to do as Australia is doing now —to take a unit provided by the Admiralty policy and pay for it, not disturbing the scheme of Imperial Defence, but sharing it—nothing but good can result; and as much will be done by these nominal units, these individual navies, if they come under the scheme of Admiralty policy as if the money was paid direct to the Imperial Exchequer for distribution upon the whole Navy. I have some questions to put, to which I hope to get an answer. I should like to know, in the first place, how far Admiral Henderson's scheme has made progress? That scheme was far-reaching and extraordinarily important. It provided for an expenditure over twenty-two years of a sum of money amounting to £23,000,000, which would give Australia a navy of eight armoured and ten protected cruisers, eighteen destroyers, and twelve submarines, the cost of the yearly maintenance of which would be £1,226,000, with 15,000 personnel. In this question I have long taken an interest, and seven years ago I made an estimate of what the Australian 1076 Dominion ought to pay if it contributed to the Imperial Exchequer in support of the Navy and if it paid according to its mercantile marine, and that estmate, which I made when I spoke before the Australian Chambers of Commerce, was £1,300,000. My estimate was the estimate of the man in the street, and was based upon the commerce of the Dominion of Australia and its mercantile marine, but this scheme, if we are to have Colonial or Dominion navies at all, it seems to me, is far-reaching in its consequences. You never would get from a Dominion, I believe, under the old system a contribution of £1,500,000 or £1,250,000. The collateral advantages of the new system are immense.
A naval spirit cannot be bred in a people unless the people of the country see, as it were, that which belongs to them, what they have made, into which their men have gone and their money has gone, and where a daily object lesson is presented of a Navy which they can call their own, and a Navy, which I believe— it would be a painful thought if it were not to be so—would in time of war necessarily be under the supreme direction of our commander at the Admiralty here, and sharing not only in the responsibilities of the defence of the individual Dominion, but sharing in the responsibilities for the protection of the interests of the Empire, and this responsibility could only be properly shared—and I believe the Governments of the Dominions would realise that —when a great general policy is produced by the naval experts here and accepted in time of trouble by each individual Dominion. Canada's position in this matter is one which is different from that of Australia. Canada is a continental country and a country primarily agricultural. It has never realised until the last few years its danger. What do I mean by its danger? Not territorial, but the danger to its commerce. Canada is building up her commerce between Vancouver and Japan and she hopes to have as great a market for her wheat in Japan and China as in England and as in her own eastern provinces. If she does that, her trade routes must be protected, and those markets for which she desires to open the door can only be secured to her by a Navy. It is not strange that when the Government of this country, for both parties were responsible, gave the Colonies independent responsible government, asking no contribution and making no condition that they should share in the naval 1077 expenditure, and the responsibility for naval development, it is not strange that a Dominion like Canada should come slowly to realise the tremendous responsibilities which rest upon her with regard to her commerce, her trade, her exports and imports. It is a good thing to realise that she has now come to an understanding of that position, as Australia came to it sooner, being an island people, like the people of this country, with Japan not far away, with its large population ready to pour themselves into the Dominion of Australia, with Germany and New Guinea, and France and New Caledonia. Australia during the last quarter of a century has been surrounded by naval Powers which naturally were going to look after their own interests and where they could take advantage, I do not mean unfair advantage, and strengthen and increase their position would do so, as Germany would have done, of course, in the case of New Guinea, had it not been for the intervention of the Queensland Government.
Australia came sooner to understand her responsibilities. She gave, and as I think, gave very freely in the circumstances, uneducated as her people were in regard to naval responsibilities. New Zealand did the same. New Zealand has not found it possible to undertake a Navy of her own, but she is doing a really fine thing. She is providing a "Dreadnought," as Australia is providing a "Dreadnought," and she is giving £100,000 on condition that a certain number of the cruisers' and destroyers which belong to the China unit shall show themselves in New Zealand waters and remain there for a certain period of each year. Australia has taken upon herself the responsibility of paying for the upkeep and the interest on the Sinking Fund of the cost of the unit, representing about £600,000 a year, to which I think this Government makes a contribution of £250,000. I think that is all to the good, and I believe that the basis of it is sound, and no one can read the report of that Conference in 1909 without being powerfully struck by the sense of responsibility which the representatives of the over-sea Dominions had in regard to the security of the Empire, and what was best in it all was this, that they were not thinking only of their coastal defence, but were grasping the greater thing, that is that their coastal defence with a few cruisers would be as nothing unless they had behind them the whole force of the British Navy. This afternoon a good deal was made from this side of the House of the 1078 lack of cruisers upon our trade routes, and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lee) said he thought the development of these Colonial Navies would be a great advantage in that their cruisers would act as patrols and would show the flag where the flag ought to be shown, because there is just as much advantage to be gained in the prestige which comes from showing the flag as in any other kind of demonstration, military or otherwise, which could be made. We are not quite clear whether Canada has decided to choose the first or the second of the schemes which were put before the conference.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThe latter.
Sir G. PARKERThat, I think, is as good in the circumstances as can be, because that will involve an expenditure of £600,000 for Canada. Six-hundred-thousand pounds from a country which a year ago spent nothing for the Imperial Navy is a thing of which we may not only be proud, but glad in the circumstances. And remember you will have their contribution from a country one-third of which is composed of French Canadians, who, loyal as they are to the flag and to the soil on which they were born, could not have been expected to share in our Imperial aspirations. Fortunately, as I have always held, at the time of the South African war, and when this question came up a French Canadian was Prime Minister of that country. They say Sir Wilfrid Laurier was pressed by public opinion to do it. I do not know any Government that is not pressed by public opinion to do its duty. I have never known any Government move unless it was impelled from behind. At any rate you have got that to the good. The ships that Canada will have are old ships, I presume of not a great deal of value, but of immense value in being an object lesson to people who never had a cruiser of their own before, and an immense object lesson in that, although now manned by our Reserves, they will. I hope, be manned ultimately by Canadians. I should like to ask if it is intended in Canada and Australia and New Zealand to recruit at once for these units?
The CHAIRMANThe hon. Gentleman is really going outside this Vote. Considerations referring to the Colonies are in order as far as they affect our shipbuilding programme, but when he refers to recruiting, that is quite outside.
Sir G. PARKERShould I be in order in asking, for instance, whether the Naval Board proposed by the scheme of Admiral Sir Reginald Henderson, which, as it seems to me must have the highest sanction of this Government and of the Admiralty, has been established, whether its chief director or senior member has been appointed, and whether, for instance, Commander Clarkson, who was to take charge of the construction of dockyard and naval bases, has done so—
Sir G. PARKERI suppose I shall be in order in asking whether the general scheme proposed by Admiral Henderson and the general scheme which Canada, I presume, has accepted, is being developed. If I am not in order in that I do not quite understand how it was that on 13th July, 1909, the First Lord of the Admiralty was able to answer a question of the hon. Member for Clare upon this very question, or whether the scheme of the Australian Government was being developed and had been before the Admiralty, and if there was any likelihood of its being accepted.
§ Mr. McKENNAThe hon. Gentleman is now asking a series of questions concerning the future. Surely as the future to which he refers is the future of Australia and Canada, it is a matter for the Australian and the Canadian Parliaments to say what they propose to do. I do not think it would be appropriate on the discussion of Vote 8 to announce what may or may not be the intention of the Australian and Canadian Governments.
Sir G. PARKERI see the force of that, and naturally I should be the last in the world to traverse these very proper lines of the conduct of Debate. It is quite true that these are questions which naturally should first be answered by Canadian or Australian Ministers in their own Parliaments, but I hope the Members of this Committee will realise that it was in no captious spirit I brought the matter up. I was supporting the Government very strongly on this matter. They have accepted the natural process of evolution for which we are responsible on this side of the House. I believe that this whole thing has come from the establishment of the Committee of Defence. That Committee set in action the principle of bringing the representatives of the over-seas 1080 Dominions into the councils of the Empire. To that extent a great principle has been embodied with respect to the relations between the Colonies and ourselves—the principle of co-operation. That principle is, it seems to me, far more important than contributions which may relieve our Exchequer, for it breeds an inspiring policy which, I believe, will be productive in the end of a real council of the Empire in regard to the Navy. If it does not do that, then the evidence we have seen in this particular development is very misleading. But I believe firmly that from the Committee of Defence has sprung this larger co-operation as to the Navy.
I dare hope that in a few years we shall find not only Admiral Henderson's scheme accepted, but that a larger scheme will be carried. I hope that Canada, having started on this path, will come to a co-operation with the Naval Administration here which in days to come will ensure the Empire from all outside attacks, will give security for our trade and for the development of our commerce, will preserve our position by the strength we have as a naval Power in the counsels of the world, and will give us a certain access to all those markets where our goods go, and in which, without a strong Navy, we must be at a disadvantage in view of the increasing power of other navies whose object is not, I think, to attack our territory, but to give them, if possible, as strong a position as we hold by virtue of our naval strength among the Powers of the world. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make as wide a statement as possible upon this question. As the Colonies have made this move, as they have translated their feeling and their purpose into pounds, shillings, and pence, as they are starting naval schools and attempting to standardise their armies, as they are giving their naval officers an opportunity for training similar to our own, I hope this Government will be able to show during this Parliament to the people of the country what great things the Dominions are doing for the welfare of the Empire.
§ Colonel YATEThe question raised by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir G. Parker) is one of the utmost importance. When we have the navies of the various Dominions adequately developed, with New Zealand, Australia, and possibly South Africa and Canada, all variously centred on a British Fleet based on naval stations at Singapore and Ceylon, we may 1081 then hope to see our Eastern Colonies amply protected and our trade and commerce in the East absolutely safe and independent either of the closing of the Suez Canal in time of war or, what may equally well happen, the British Government being unable to send aid, in the case of war taking place in Europe. We desire to see a Fleet strong enough to protect our trade in the East and put down all attempts to interfere with it, quite independently of any help from Europe. I trust that the day when we shall see this is not far off. I think we ought to take to heart the words spoken by the Noble Lord, the Member for Portsmouth, that we should differentiate entirely between the question of our battle fleets and the protection of our trade routes. As to our battle fleets, I was very much in sympathy with the remarks of the hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Burgoyne) and others who raised the question of secondary armaments in war. When we begin to realise that only on sixty-five days in the year on the average is it possible for a battle to be fought at long distance range in the North Sea, we can understand that it would be an advantage to us to have more guns suitable for close range work.
§ Mr. McKENNAThat is not so. There is no question that the number of days is vastly more than sixty-five.
§ Colonel YATECan the right hon. Gentleman toll me what is the average number of days? That was the number stated this afternoon. Of course, I am not an expert on the subject. I should be glad to hear if it can be stated what is the average number of days on which it could be hoped to fight a battle at 8,000 or 10,000 yards. It was stated this afternoon that the number was sixty-five. Whatever the number is, looking at it from the layman's point of view, almost all of us would sympathise with the idea that it would be better to have two ships costing a million each than one ship costing two millions. However, that is a question on which I am not able to give an opinion. I listened with pleasure to the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he was providing us with a larger number of heavily armed cruisers with large fighting powers, able to tackle cruisers of the enemy. But that is a different question entirely from the question of protection of our food ships in war, and the protection of our trade routes, and I think our want 1082 at the present moment is a number of smaller ships capable of policing these routes and keeping them clear. We have heard to-day that the number of these ships has been reduced from sixty to twenty. The one assurance the British working man requires is that his food supply shall be secure in time of war, but I think when he learns that the number of cruisers protecting our trade routes has been reduced from sixty to twenty he will not sleep soundly in his bed. Our food supply must be protected by cruisers, and there is danger in this reduction of the police ships upon our trade routes. I hope that the present state of things in this matter of the protection of our trade routes will be altered in a very short time. One other question has reference to the class of ships serving in the East. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not take into consideration the sufferings inflicted on men in our ships serving in the terrible heat of the Persian Gulf and round the coast of India. We know what have been the sufferings of men employed lately in putting down gun-running and in other services in the Persian Gulf. These modern iron vessels are built for the Atlantic and Northern latitudes, and they are utterly unsuited for service in the Persian Gulf and on the coast of India where the heat is so intense.
§ Colonel YATEI was talking about the construction of ships.
The CHAIRMANThe hon. Gentleman was talking about old ships, and not about the construction of new ships.
§ Colonel YATEI am asking for the construction of new ships, and I was referring to the sufferings of men on board these iron ships with a view to ascertaining whether the Government could not provide proper vessels suitable for this police work; or the Royal Indian Marine would be perfectly able to take over these police duties. The iron vessels now employed are death-traps for the men, who undergo intense suffering. I do hope the question will be taken into consideration.
§ Mr. WHELERWe have had very little said about the question of dock accommodation, and I was wondering whether any one on the Government Bench was going to say anything about our floating docks. I want to know something as to the state in which those floating docks are, and as 1083 to removing the floating dock from the Medway to the north of Scotland. According to an answer given by the First Lord of the Admiralty some time ago, he inferred that there was a possibility of two floating docks being removed to the north, and I wish to ask whether there is any likelihood of any other docks taking their place, and what is the position of the other docks on the Estimates for the present year. I understand that we have now launched the twenty-first ship of the "Dreadnought" kind. It does seem to me a very important question for discussion what is to be the dock accommodation for these large ships. There has been very little said about it. There are docks which can accommodate "Dreadnoughts" only at certain times of the tide, and I am sure that we require more dock accommodation than we have at the present time for our big warships. It should be borne in mind that we are having ships of bigger tonnage every year, and we should know something of the actual plans of the Admiralty for their accommodation. The Secretary to the Admiralty, in his speech to-day, referred to the limitations of the age of workmen in the dockyards for establishment. The point has arisen in the division which I have the honour to represent. I am certain that decision will be welcomed, very much welcomed. It would not have arisen so much had it not been for the fact of the suspension of the establishment system; and that men who would have been taken on if it had been in operation suffered a considerable amount of disappointment from the fact that they were slightly over the age at which they would have been placed on the establishment. I heartily congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on increasing the limit to fifty years, and I am certain that decision will be welcomed in the dockyard in the division I have the honour to represent. While this subject is under consideration I would ask that there should also be considered the amounts stopped under the establishment system. In the lower ratings, in the case of men with wages not exceeding 20s. per week a sum of 1s. per week is stopped, and 1s. 6d. for those with wages not exceeding 36s. per week. Between those amounts of pay per week and the amounts stopped there are peculiar differences. There are undoubtedly cases under the present system tinder which men have so much stopped from their weekly wage, and yet when it 1084 comes to the time to receive the pension they are not getting benefit in proportion. I would ask the First Lord to give consideration to the question so that the amounts stopped may correspond more exactly to the benefit the men gain. By doing so he will be meeting a grievance which does exist among many classes of dockyard hands. I am certain that in doing something on those points the Admiralty will be conferring a benefit which will very much interest dockyard men.
Major GUESTIn view of the fact that the day of the Investiture of the Prince of Wales will be a bank holiday in Wales, I would ask the First Lord of the Admiralty to consider whether he cannot grant that concession to the men employed at Pembroke Dockyard?
§ Mr. HOHLERTo the Members for dockyard constituencies this Vote is exceedingly important. I desire to appeal to the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Financial Secretary to consider the real position of the dockyards. Take the case of Chatham. In Chatham we are solely dependent for the employment of the men resident there on the dockyard. The whole river frontage is occupied for that purpose, and except at the dockyards the men of Chatham and Gillingham have substantially no employment at all. I would ask above all things that, in making provision for your naval programme, you should see that at any rate your dockyards are amply supplied with work in order that we may not have discharges of the men. I do not say that has been the case in the past winter, and I think we have reason to be grateful for the policy of the Admiralty in regard to employment, but there have been discharges this spring which at one time threatened to be serious. The displacement of labour is great, and it is exceedingly difficult to find employment in the district. I therefore do ask the First Lord and the Financial Secretary to carefully consider the matter, and in their programme to make first provision for their own dockyard hands. Outside you have your great contractors with whom you place contracts for your vessels, but it is to be borne in mind with reference to them, that they are able to compete, not only in this country, but with foreign nations for the construction of vessels. I appeal, therefore, for first consideration and an adequate supply of work for the dockyard towns and particularly for the town which I have the honour to represent. The First Lord of the Treasury said "Hear, 1085 hear." I give the first consideration to Chatham because it is a place the importance of which I am not sure he realises. I want the First Lord to bear in mind with regard to dockyard accommodation that there is no question but that up the Medway you can bring your "Dreadnoughts." The sole difficulty is that there is no dry dock in which you can repair them. Having regard to the increasing size of our vessels and the importance of this yard, upon which the whole growth and livelihood of the town depends, I ask the First Lord to consider the question of further facilities for docking accommodation at Chatham. The only other point I wish to bring forward is in regard to the chargemen's claims. I regret that the Admiralty have kept back the answers to the petitions until this Debate is over.
§ Mr. McKENNAThat is not true.
§ Mr. HOHLERThe fact remains that we have not got them, whereas last year we had them at a much earlier date. It may be that the Treasury have kept them back. In any case the Vote is now being discussed, and it would have been exceedingly convenient to have known what is being done. I dislike the system of petitions altogether. It is antiquated and wholly unsatisfactory. Only once in a year there is an opportunity of laying the men's grievances before the Admiralty. If you bring them forward at any other time you are told that you must wait for the answers to the petitions, although the reply in regard to the bulk of them is that they cannot be acceded to. The result is that you can never put the men's just grievances in a proper form before this House. I ask that the system should be entirely abolished. I would infinitely prefer that the matter should go before the Advisory Board. I believe that if the case went before the Advisory Board it would be redressed at once. I have made careful inquiry of the various heads of departments in regard to the matter, and I am told that all are equally entitled to the 1s. 6d. charge-money. This matter was brought before the attention of the First Lord in 1908. On the 17th of June in that year the following question was put to the right hon. Gentleman:—
Whether it is his intention to withhold the concessions granted to a limited number of chargemen of shipwrights from the remaining chargemen and from the chargemen of other trades; and, if so whether he will state in what respects their various duties have ceased to be of equal responsibility.1086 This was the reply to the First Lord:—The duties of chargemen are not now and never have been invariably of equal responsibility; but the matter has again been made the subject of a petition by the chargemen, and will be further considered in due course.I was reading the answer given by the First Lord of the Admiralty in 1908. The Government happen to be employers in this case, and I do think that the men's case deserves consideration at their hands. As long ago as 1908 they said that the matter would be further considered in due course. We have passed 1909 and 1910. Nothing has been done. We have got to 1911. I do not say whose is the fault. But owing to the fault of somebody these petitions have been unduly delayed; therefore we cannot raise the point. I ask, therefore, in the event of the Admiralty having refused the request of the chargemen that they will undertake to bring the matter before the Advisory Committee, in order that it may be dealt with, and be at rest.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAMy hon. Friend the hon. Member for Gravesend raised the very important question of the participation of the Overseas Dominions in the naval defence of the Empire. May I say, as one Colonial born, that I take great pride in the instant recognition by the Overseas Dominions of their stake in the integrity of this Empire. My hon. Friend is familiar with the agreements which we have entered into in 1909 with the representatives of the Overseas Dominions. I concur entirely with the First Lord of the Admiralty that it would be improper for us here and now to forecast the future or to anticipate the action of the Dominion Governments in this matter. I was privileged to be present at some of those meetings, if not all, and I was greatly impressed, if I may say so, with the proceedings. I have confidence that quietly and unostentatiously the representatives of the Home Government and the representatives of the Overseas Dominions made plans there and then which in their full fruition will have a far-reaching effect as regards the consolidation of the safety of this Empire. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport raised the question of establishment. He says: "You are only now, subject to the Treasury, establishing 6,500." That gives us the number of established men which we consider desirable in the national interests and in the interests of the proper administration of our work. I cannot hold out any prospect 1087 that that number will be at once further increased. The increase of the age to fifty has been suggested by the hon. Member for Devonport as likely to prevent men otherwise eligible from being established at an earlier age. I am quite sure that the local officials are not likely to draw a line of the sort suggested: men will be established upon their merits. Men have now got five more years to go during which they will be eligible for, and have the opportunity for, establishment. As the hon. Member says, I believe this will be treated by the men as a valuable concession. The hon. Member for Devonport and others said the wages paid by the Board are very much lower than the wages in similar trades in the locality. That is not correct. I do not think he can give me a case where the wages paid by the Board are very much lower. In any case, I deny that statement. It must be remembered the dockyards have a forty-eight hour week; the establishment men have ultimately a pension under a scheme which is not self-supporting. The hon. Member said the men make their contribution of a shilling or eighteen pence, but the scheme is not self-supporting. The hired men, to say nothing of the establishment men, have a much greater continuity of employment than men. outside, particularly in the shipbuilding trade, and after fifteen years' service those hired men are entitled to a gratuity of a week's pay for each year of service, and after seven years if they are "stood off" on reduction they are entitled to a week's wages for each year of service, and I may say although it does not come under this service, that in 1910–11 we paid £10,450 in gratuities to what I refer. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth said there were few men of the skilled labouring class who got the maximum wage of 30s. It is a special rate, and it is only possible for men who are really engaged at machine work of a responsible character, but under the conditions which are about to be issued, the hon. Member for Chatham will be glad to know a certain further number of men will be included. The number will be comparatively small—I do not want to put the matter too high—but the number of skilled labourers authorised to be borne on the special rate of 30s. and 29s. for hired men, and 28s. 6d. and 27s 6d. for established men, are to be increased in accordance with the instructions to superintendents, and these rates are to be available for men employed as manual 1088 workers on the more important operations requiring skill, or who actually use hand or machine tools as responsible workmen. Up to last year this special rate was conferred to men engaged upon machine work of a responsible character, now we have made this extension, it is not very much and I am not disposed to say a very large number of men will come under it, but it is to be available for manual workers engaged upon the more important work requiring skill or special qualifications; that is an addition to the men engaged upon machine work. The result will be that a number of men will be eligible for the new rate of 30s. per week. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke expressed the hope that replies might be sent earlier. The matter does not entirely depend on us—another Department is concerned. My hon. Friend made a suggestion which I think is worthy of consideration, and that is that replies should be received one month before the petition for next year is undertaken. Subject to any evidence I may hear to the contrary, I think that is reasonable because it gives the men time to formulate their views. I will bear the matter in mind. With regard to another point raised by the hon. Member for Chatham, what is the position? The members of the Board sit upon one side of the table and the employés upon the other so that there is direct communication, and I think that is a most admirable arrangement. I have been greatly interested to sit there and listen to the petition which these men bring forward and adjudicate between them and the interest of the public purse. I am quite sure those representing the Admiralty are glad to see the employés to hear what complaints they have to allege. The hon. Baronet said that when these decisions are promulgated it will be found that the greater number of these claims will be marked "not acceded to." May I point out that since 1906 the wages concessions to the employés of the dockyards amount to between £60,000 and £70,000 a year. The hon. Member for Chatham has reminded us that Chatham has nothing else much to depend upon but the dockyard, and he says a number of men have been dismissed.
§ Mr. HOHLERThere have been 300 or 400 discharges.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI have a paper here showing that on 4th May, 1907, the number employed at Chatham was 6,868, 1089 whereas on 24th June, 1911, the total was 8,953. I think, if I may say so, that that is doing Chatham very well. The hon. Member for Pembroke asked us to give a holiday to the men employed at the Pembroke Dockyard on the occasion of the Investiture of the Prince of Wales. Of course, I cannot give an answer to that now, because precedents will have to be gone into, but the Board of Admiralty will communicate with my hon. Friend in due course.
The hon. Member for Sheerness asked me a question about the floating dock. I may say that it will be in the Medway before the close of the year. It is not there yet, and any question as to whether it may or may not be taken somewhere else I cannot answer. We have not contemplated anything else except placing it in the Medway. I think I have now answered all the questions, and I appeal to the Committee to allow this Vote to go through.
§ Mr. LEEI wish to put one question to the First Lord of the Admiralty. What has become of the naval airship? We have heard a great deal about it from time to time. It was taken out of its shed after a period of incubation extending over a period of nine or twelve months, but only for a few hours, and then it was returned to its shed. Since its return it has not been seen or heard of. It cannot be on account of the weather, because a number of aviators have crossed over from the Continent during the last few days. It would be of interest if the right hon. Gentleman would tell us what has become of this new engine of war which so far has not exhibited any very highly offensive qualities. Will the First Lord of the Admiralty tell us something about it?
§ Mr. McKENNAPerhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to read him the reply: "The airship is now completed, and trials of the vessel in and outside of the shed have been carried out. It has been found desirable to stiffen some of the transverse stays, and this work is nearly complete. The gas-bags will be again inflated and the outer covers replaced, and trials in the air will be carried out as soon as favourable opportunities occur."
§ Mr. McKENNAImmediately, possibly next week.
§ Question put, and agreed to.