4. Captain FABERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if, in view of the announcement in July that increased pay for the Navy was not a subject for long and dilatory inquiry because all facts necessary to a decision were well known at the Admiralty, he will explain why an announcement has not yet been made; and whether the £1,600,000 which was to go for increased pay for the Navy, or any part of it, has been used with reference to the new proposals for the payment of doctors under the National Insurance Act?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLIn regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I have nothing to add to my previous statements on this subject. With regard to the second part, the £1,600,000, to which I presume the hon. Member refers, was intended to be used in relief of the underspending on general Navy Votes which occurred in the year 1911–12. It has never had anything to do either with the pay of the Navy or with the payment of the doctors under the National Insurance Act, and since the pay of the Navy and the payment of doctors will both be perpetual charges, it is difficult to see how anyone could have been so simple as to consider an isolated capital sum already assigned to another object as appropriate for such annual purposes.
Captain FABERIf it was not meant for the Navy, why did not the right hon. Gentleman say so sooner? If it was, why did he not give the pay sooner?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLIt was never intended to be related in any way to the pay of the Navy. It is obviously unsuited for that. It is only a lump sum, whereas anything connected with the pay of the Navy must go on year after year. It obviously could not have anything to do with that, and never did in fact.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEIs the right, hon. Gentleman aware that I put the same question at least a week ago, and that the answer was something entirely different?
§ Mr. WHELERDoes the right hon. Gentleman still adhere to the undertaking which, I believe, he gave to the House, that he would make a statement before Christmas?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLMost certainly. I am sure it is in the interests of the men serving in the Navy generally that the Admiralty should have all necessary time, or reasonably necessary time, in which to make their proposals. It is not merely a question of handing over a lump sum. It is a question of apportioning it between different grades and classes of a very complicated system. For instance, the hon. Member put forward the suggestion that a penny a day all round should be given. Such a proposal is, in the opinion of the Admiralty, inadequate to deal with the case.
§ Mr. YERBURGHDoes the right hon. Gentleman recollect that when the Navy 266 Supplementary Estimates were introduced on 22nd July, he said that this was merely a question of choosing the method, and has it taken him from then till now to decide upon that method?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe question has to be considered in regard to the different complex ratings affected and their relation to the general wage movement of the country. It is really not unreasonable to complain of delay which is clearly limited and which may be necessary to enable the Government to put their proposals forward in a considered and final form.
§ Mr. YERBURGHDoes the right hon. Gentleman consider four months a reasonable time?
§ 7. Mr. YERBURGHasked whether the delay in settling the terms of the increased pay promised to the Navy is due to the fact that the money originally allocated for giving it has been utilised for other public purposes; and whether the Admiralty have been compelled in consequence to reduce their projected scale of increase of pay?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI am obliged to the hon. Member for giving an opportunity of repudiating without reserve or qualification a peculiarly mischievous and ill-natured invention. The amount of increased pay to be given to the Navy will be decided on its merits and independently of any other calls upon the Exchequer.
§ Mr. YERBURGHDo I understand from that reply that there is no truth in the statement that there has been a consequent decrease in the amount of pay to be given?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLCertainly; that is perfectly true. The question of the pay of the Navy has been considered quite apart from other matters. What is found to be just and right will be given, irrespective of other charges or claims.
14. Mr. FRED HALLasked what was the rate of pay of seamen in the Navy in January, 1906, and what is the rate now, taking account of any deductions which are made; what was the average cost of maintenance per man under the head of food at the beginning of 1906 and now; what annual furlough is granted to each man; and is any special allowance made to seamen when on leave beyond their ordinary pay?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe rate of pay of an able seaman, excluding allowances for special qualifications and badge money, was in 1906 1s. 7d. a day, in addition to which he received 1d. as trained man. The rate is now 1s. 8d., the 1d. for trained man having been abolished as a separate rate and included in the substantive pay. When able seamen are sent to hospital at home a deduction of 10d. a day is made in ordinary cases after the first thirty days in hospital. There are no other deductions except as punishments for misconduct, but men are required to maintain their own kit, the cost for an able seaman being about £3 a year. The average cost to the Crown under the head of food in 1906 was about 9¾d. a day per man. It is now about 10¼d. The amount of leave varies according to the nature of the service on which ships are employed. The crews of the First and Second Fleets receive twenty-eight days in the year. A provision allowance of 8½d. a day was granted in 1906 to warrant officers, seamen, and marines, on ships' books who are away on leave beyond forty-eight hours.
Mr. FRED HALLDoes the increase in the rates of pay include the services to which the right hon. Gentleman recently referred, and is the latter likely to come into operation before Christmas?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLCertainly, certainly. I said I contemplated that they would come into operation from the time they are announced.
Mr. FRED HALLYes, "from the time they are announced," but—if I may press the right hon. Gentleman—may we expect them before Christmas?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI have said over and over again before Christmas.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEWill the right hon. Gentleman, when he makes his statement before Christmas, take into consideration the question of hospital stoppages?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI do not intend to go into any detail until I am able to make the statement in its fulness.