§ 6. Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can say how many petitions have been presented from the Royal dockyards to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty during the last three years; how many of these have been granted and how many have not been acceded to; whether he is aware that this method of petitioning the Lords Commissioners is regarded by many workers in the Royal dockyards as a way of postponement rather than consideration; and whether he can devise some other method by which men employed in the Royal dockyards can bring their grievances to the notice of the Admiralty, with a view of their requests being more promptly dealt with than in existing circumstances appears possible?
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara)To give the particulars asked for by the hon. Member would involve a great deal of labour. Further, such particulars would have but little practical value, inasmuch as many of the petitions contain a number of separate requests, many are repetitions year by year of the same requests, and many repeat the same requests on behalf of different classes of workmen. The number of separate requests and complaints, including repetitions, dealt with in the printed replies to the 1909, 1910, and 1911 petitions, mainly relating to Vote 8 men, was 1,319. In the great majority of these cases the replies were not favourable to the petitioners. In many cases, however, the replies were favourable, and a number of concessions were granted. The total cost of the concessions 1246 granted during the last three years is estimated at, approximately, £55,000 per-annum on the basis of the numbers at present employed. The whole question of the present method of hearing the workmen's petitions has been raised at recent interviews with the men, and is receiving careful consideration.
Sir C.KINLOCH-COOKEAre we to understand that all the petitions sent in in 1911 have been replied to?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAYes, certainly.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEAnd none of them are now under the consideration of the Government?
§ Dr. MACNAMARACertain points in regard to Portsmouth, Devonport, and Chatham are under consideration.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEAre there no petitions of 1911 under the consideration of the Government?
§ Dr. MACNAMARASome of the 1911 petitioners have been informed that the subject of their petitions are under consideration.
§ 16. LORD CHARLES BERESFORDasked whether shortly after the National Insurance Act came into operation, men were discharged from various departments of His Majesty's dockyards; and, if so, whether these discharges were carried out in order to cover the cost of the extra expenditure involved by the Act?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThe only discharges since the Insurance Act came into operation have been of a purely normal character. In point of fact, between the week ended 20th July and the week ended 16th November, the entries in the shipbuilding departments of His Majesty's dockyards have exceeded the discharges by 2,996. The result is that whilst during the first week the Insurance Act was in operation there were 38,118 men so employed, during the nineteenth week of the operation of the Act there were 41,114. I may add that under the Works Department there were 4,225 men employed at the end of June, and 4,370 at the end of September. There still remain the men employed in the Naval Ordnance Departments, and in regard to these I may state that there has been a slight increase in the numbers employed since 15th July last, and the numbers at present employed amount to approximately 3,700. The suggestion conveyed in the latter part of the 1247 question as absolutely unwarranted. I should scarcely have thought it worth while to put it forward even for purposes of denial.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEIs it not a fact that there is now a considerable number of men who have received their discharges, on reduction at Devonport dockyard, to come into force next Saturday?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThat may be the case if they were taken on for a particular job. It has nothing to do with the Insurance Act. That is perfectly clear.