§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,930,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Victualling and Clothing for the Navy, including the cost of Victualling Establishments at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914."
§ Mr. WHELERI find that under subhead "K" there is an increase from £58,700 to £79,800 for "mess traps." It is stated that there is an additional cost of £22,000 in the amount for "mess traps for officers and men, and implements, etc., for His Majesty's ships." I should like a little information about this item. I am not quite certain what the words "mess traps" actually cover.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara)The addition is due to the increase in the number of the personnel, and to some other causes.
§ 4.0 P.M.
§ Mr. CHARLES ROBERTSI want to raise a question which is familiar to the Secretary to the Admiralty, namely, the rum ration in the Navy. I wish to express to the right hon. Gentleman my thanks for doing something in this matter, and making a considerable step forward in the direction which has often been pressed upon him, not from this side of the House alone. He has agreed that this matter will be dealt with in the Navy under the "T" and "G" arrangement, which at first sounds mysterious, but which, I hope, will be attended with good results. I understand the presumption is that everybody in the Navy enjoys the right to the rum ration, and that unless he makes an objection as from 1st July next, he will not draw that ration Consequently all who do not object will demand tea, and be recognised as for temperance. If others make a special application for differential treatment, they will be inscribed on the list with the capital letter "G." I think that is a step in the right direction, because it assumes that every- 908 body will take the right course, except those persons who, in my view, are misguided. While I thank the Secretary to the Admiralty for having gone as far as that, I wish him to go a little further. This arrangement was originally suggested in the Report of a Committee issued in 1907. That Report recommended the arrangement which has now been adopted. So far, so good; but it also recommended that there should be an additional grant in the way of allowance for those who do not draw their spirit ration. I understand that the daily rum costs three-sixteenths of a penny, while the men who do not take rum get nine-sixteenths of a penny instead. This Committee suggested—I do not think it was an unreasonable suggestion—that an addition should be made up to a penny. I suppose it is a little difficult to calculate fractions, and if you offer nine-sixteenths of a penny, it is not so attractive as the full penny. We ask that the full penny should be granted. We were very hopeful that it might be granted, because a year ago, when the First Lord of the Admiralty had this question brought to his notice, he was extremely sympathetic, but he said he was not at that time completely informed. He said:—
It is quite true that the extra cost will be more than compensated by the diminution of expenditure which will arise under other heads.That is a point which has been very frequently urged in this House by the senior Member for Portsmouth (Lord C. Beresford). He said that, in his opinion, there would be a real saving, and that this addition would attract a greater number of persons to become temperance men, so far as the Navy Service was concerned, and in that way the actual money cost might be made up in other directions. At that time the First Lord of the Admiralty said that every increase of money had to be scrutinised, and he wanted a little time to look into the matter. The effect of his sympathy has been that half of the recommendations of the Committee have been adopted. Having gone so far, I venture humbly to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty to give us an assurance that the other half is going to be adopted. In the Russian Navy the allowance is no less than 7s. 2d. a month in lieu of spirits. In the United States Navy spirits have been abolished altogether since 1862. I believe that the Japanese Navy does not use spirits either. So we are only asking for something which is quite feasible and which two great naval Powers have been able to accom- 909 plish. The sum involved is not very large. The whole Vote with which we are dealing to-day, provisions and messing allowances in lieu of provisions, comes to about £2,000,000. The sum with which we are dealing is of infinitesimal importance—only £12,500. I am an apostle of economy, I hope, but this can hardly be refused on the ground that it is a very serious increase in the expenditure. This expenditure will come back to us in other ways, and will be of real value in the naval service. We are only asking this at present, but I must say that if there is one service in which the State should not supply alcohol, surely it ought to be the naval service! We know now a great deal about the operation of alcohol on the mind. A series of careful experiments has been made in Germany on what the actual effect of small doses of alcohol is upon the mind, and these have been most carefully tested. The net result is that it is now established, by these experiments, beyond dispute, that the effect of small doses of alcohol is to make a man think that he does his work more quickly and more accurately, while his work when measured by objective tests is found to be slower and more inaccurate.Those experiments are based on the work of an eminent Heidelberg professor and other eminent professors in Germany. The tests have been carefully worked out by a number of elaborately devised scientific experiments and the fact is really now one which it is impossible to contest. You get, from small doses of alcohol, a sort of illusion, a sense that you are doing things better when in reality you are doing things worse. In the naval service now, when you have got battleships which are a mass of complicated mechanism, you require extreme accuracy and great ability of judgment. Surely in that sense, from the State point of view, it would be an extremely wise thing and tend to efficiency to drop alcohol altogether! Anybody who knows the facts cannot doubt that it would tend to the efficiency of the Service to suppress entirely the use of alcohol. That is already recognised to a certain extent. I believe that when a man of war is engaged in battle practice or gunnery tests most captains withhold the grog allowance until the evening. I do not know whether that is an empirical piece of practice, but it certainly has got great deal of scientific experience behind it to justify it. I believe that this practice is a practice which is thoroughly sound and might be extended. If the 910 Secretary to the Admiralty will not go quite as far as I should like on that point still I hope that he may give this extra allowance. There is a very large increase of total abstainers in the Navy. Very nearly 25 per cent. of the men in the Navy are total abstainers now. That is a change very much to be encouraged, and which I am sure the House wishes to encourage, and I believe that by this comparatively small expenditure of money you would be able to do much in this direction. I therefore express thanks to the Secretary to the Admiralty for what he has done, but I would ask him to take those two further steps, one to-day and the other as soon as he can do it. The one to-day is an extra grant of money in lieu of the spirit allowance, and the other is, if he can see his way, to abolish spirits altogether as soon as possible.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILI do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman at any length though it is rather refreshing to find somebody who still believes in the Germans. Everybody I thought had now arrived at the conclusion that these Germans who made valuable experiments were almost always wrong in their conclusions. I believe that the conclusion which the hon. Member has stated would not be accepted by the great majority of people in this country, and I might quote in opposition to his contention the authority of Professor Pearson. But I did not rise to deal with that matter. I rose to ask the Government where is the First Lord of the Admiralty?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAmade some observations which were inaudible.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILReally, as a matter of respect to the House of Commons the First Lord should be here while the Navy Votes are being discussed. I will not move to report Progress if the right hon. Gentleman assures me that the First Lord is on the premises and is coming, but if there is any doubt as to his being in touch with the House itself we ought to insist on the chief of the Department being present. In order to preserve my rights, I beg to move that Mr. Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI have sent for the First Lord.
§ The CHAIRMANI could not accept the Motion at this stage.
§ Colonel YATEI desire to get some information regarding the victualling of Malta. At page 47 in Vote 2, there is a charge of £2,620 regarding Malta, and I would take this opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman to give us some account of the condition of Malta in this respect. Malta is supplied with granaries, but so far as we know the Government do not keep those granaries full, and we want to know what provision there is in case of war for the victualling of an important fortress and dockyard like Malta which is liable to the danger of a siege. I also take the opportunity, which comes under this Vote, of asking what steps the Admiralty have taken with regard to food supply in England?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThat is not in this Vote.
§ Colonel YATEI do not think that it will be ruled out of order because I think it comes under this Vote. We have asked various questions of the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Prime Minister regarding the steps taken for the supply of food in time of war in this country and various replies have been given.
§ The CHAIRMANThat is a question of policy which does not arise under Vote 2.
§ Colonel YATEMay I ask under what Vote it does arise?
§ The CHAIRMANI should say on the Vote for the Committee of Imperial Defence.
§ Sir J. D. REESI came in in time to hear the hon. Member for Lincoln. I would beg the Secretary to the Admiralty not to accept that hon. Gentleman, with all the respect which I have for him, as a representative of the feelings of the sailors. Until he can produce his credentials to show that he represents them—which is hardly possible from what we know of the views of the hon. Gentleman and of the views of the ordinary sailors—I do not think that you could find any hon. Member in this House who is less likely to be representative of the views of the British sailor than the hon. Gentleman. I remember that there was a tradition, it may be—for I have never seen the tombstone, and it may not be true—but many years ago, when I first went to India, it was said that there was a tombstone on the Coromandel coast to the memory of the sailor who was slain by his fellow sailors for refusing his tot 912 of rum. I do not seriously mean to say that that is true, and I have not seen the tombstone, but I do say that the speech of the hon. Gentleman would be extremely unpopular in the Service in regard to the affairs of which he has for the moment intervened, and that the interest which he represents is not that of the majority of the sailors, who, though they may be perfectly temperate, are not intemperate to the extent of wishing to deprive everybody else who temperately drinks of the opportunity of doing so. I believe in temperance in the best sense of the word, in being neither extreme in one respect or the other, and I hope that the Admiralty will not be led astray by the blandishments of the hon. Gentleman, which he invariably supplies with great consistency, whether in or out of season, in regard to his own particular creed. May I ask a question in reference to the Vote on page 45 as to the proportion of contribution from the Government of India on account of His Majesty's ships in Indian waters—£9,100? I do not know how that is calculated. I am far indeed from suggesting that it ought to be larger. I do not at all think so. I believe that the argument sometimes put forward in this House, that the Government of India does not give sufficient contribution, is entirely a bad argument, but I do not know how the amount is calculated. The next item is the proportion of repayments from the Government of India on account of services rendered by His Majesty's ships engaged in the suppression of the arms traffic in the Persian Gulf. That is £7,000. It was £6,300 last year. What is the proportion? I would have thought that the whole of these services were debitable to India or that the whole of them were debitable to the Admiralty. I do not understand how that calculation is made. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would give me some information upon that subject.
§ Mr. LEEI do not wish to follow the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. C. Roberts) in his very interesting dissertation upon the deleterious effects of alcohol I do not quite understand his point, but if he is asking for the abolition of the rum ration altogether, that is quite feasible. As I understand, however, he is asking that the men who prefer, perhaps rightly, not to partake of rum should be subsidised under the Navy Vote out of money voted by Parliament to maintain the Navy in a 913 state of right efficiency at the expense of other branches of the Service. The men, I believe, get nine-sixteenths of a penny in lieu of alcohol, which they might consume if they chose, and the hon. Member opposite proposes that they should get sixteen-sixteenths of a penny in exchange for what they give up.
§ Mr. CHARLES ROBERTSThirteen-sixteenths.
§ Mr. LEEThe hon. Member opposite said he was an apostle of economy. I am not a judge of apostles; still, it is an economic question for the Liberal party. The total amount involved, the hon. Member said, was small, but I submit that what he proposes would be an indefensible system to adopt. The money is voted for the service of the Navy, and he proposes that a part of that money, which is much needed in other directions, should be used to subsidise those who refuse to indulge a taste which other members of the Service have. I could not accept that principle in connection with the expenditure of public money. I am prepared to hear discussed, and to come to a decision upon, the question of the abolition of rum in the Navy, but it seems to me that the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, from the point of view of expediency or from the financial point of view, is not in the best interests or practice of the economic professions of the Liberal party.
§ Mr. MUNROI rise to ask a question with reference to Cromarty. I think there are large naval developments pending there, and I have recently been given to understand that a canteen is to be opened at Cromarty. I do not know if any communications have reached the Admiralty on the subject or not, but I have certainly had representations against the proposed scheme, which is viewed locally with a considerable amount of apprehension—indeed, anxiety. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can give us any information on the subject when he comes to reply, but I hone his answer will be of a reassuring character, for I can assure him such an answer would be welcome to the locality.
§ Mr. FALLEThere are several questions I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman in regard to items on page 44 of the Estimates. In view of the fact that the pay of the lower deck is admitted by everybody to be inadequate, not to use too harsh a term, I should like to ask the right hon. 914 Gentleman whether he will make some provision for the renewal of clothes of seamen when the free kit is worn out. At the present moment that is not done. I also wish to ask him a question as to the allowance in lieu of clothing. Will that allowance be made to the full value of the clothing or at its cost value? Then I desire to draw attention to the kit of men on re-engagement for continuous service, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is possible to give those men, on re-engaging, a free kit. Those men are more valuable than any other class of men, and a great many of them do not re-engage. Their services are most valuable, and anything which can be done to induce them to continue in the Service would be very beneficial. I think the suggestion I make, to offer them a free kit, would be well worth trying. There is an item lower down on the page in reference to an allowance in lieu of bedding. I see that it is £400 more this year than last year, and I should like to know what the item means. Naturally, of course, it does not mean the hard plank. One further point has reference to marine clothing and allowances in lieu of it. In the Royal Marines the colour-sergeants and sergeants were allowed to wear mufti. That order was apparently stopped by the general in command. I should like to know whether it was after consultation with the Admiralty or not. That only the colour-sergeant and those above him in rank may appear in mufti is now the rule. It is a rule which presses very unfairly and unnecessarily on the men, and it would be a small favour to allow them to appear in mufti if they wished to do so. On page 45 there is an item, "Appropriations-in-Aid," for recoveries on account of seamen's clothing, etc. I do not know what "et cetera" means. I can understand that if a seaman or marine deserts, that his family should not benefit by the sale of his effects.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILI rise to renew my Motion to report Progress.
§ The CHAIRMANI said I would allow a sufficient time to elapse before accepting the Motion.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILWe were told by the right hon. Gentleman that the First Lord of the Admiralty was in the House.
§ Dr. MACNAMARANo; I have sent for him. I said he was either here or engaged at the Admiralty.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILI certainly understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the First Lord of the Admiralty was here.
§ The CHAIRMANI will take the Motion of the Noble Lord after a reasonable time has elapsed.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONSurely we ought to know where the First Lord of the Admiralty is. It has been invariably the custom to take such a Motion when the Minister does not attend within a reasonable time. I do press that very strongly.
§ The CHAIRMANI said I would take this Motion shortly and when sufficient time had elapsed.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAMy hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln raised the question of the rum ration, and a number of comments have been made upon the subject by the Member for Fareham and other hon. Gentlemen. The position is this: The men in the Navy over the age of twenty are entitled to have a rum ration of one-eighth of a pint of rum served out to them, or they can choose instead of the daily allowance a money allowance of nine-sixteenths of a penny. I think that something like 12,000 men take the nine-sixteenths of a penny in lieu of the ration. In 1908 a Departmental Committee went into this question, and they thought that temperance would be promoted if, in lieu of the rum ration, the men received each a penny. We undertook to obtain a report from the Fleet as to whether that would be the case or not, and, as far as we could, reports were obtained from ships and establishments containing about 80,000 men. With regard to the cost, if we assume on the figures of 80,000, what the amount would be for the whole Service, we might expect about 15,000 additional temperance men, and the cost with that additional number, would probably run to something like £25,000 a year. To give a penny on that basis, would cost something like £30,000 a year. The Reports were not unanimous that allowing a penny in lieu of the rum ration would promote temperance, and I think the change which we have proposed is the most salutary one. We propose that from 1st July every man over twenty years of age shall be eligible for a money allowance of nine-sixteenths of a penny, which he will get automatically, but, if he wants rum, he will have to ask for it. They have hitherto got the rum 916 automatically, and alternatively had to ask for the money allowance. But the proposal now is that the men shall be entitled to nine-sixteenths of a penny, or alternatively must ask for the rum. My hon. Friend must rest content with that; I cannot go beyond it at the present time. We propose to receive reports upon the new system at the end of the year, when it will have been working for six months. There, I think, the matter must rest. I may add that the giving of a penny all round in lieu of the rum ration would cost £100,000 a year.
§ Sir FREDERICK BANBURYWhat will be the position if a man takes the nine-sixteenths of a penny on the Monday, the rum ration on the Tuesday, then the nine-sixteenths of a penny on the Wednesday, the ruin ration on the Thursday, and so on?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI do not think that the man would be allowed to change from day to day, for that would be a very difficult administrative procedure. A point was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Melton in regard to the victualling of Malta. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked whether we were satisfied with regard to the victualling of Malta, and he based his question on figures on pages 47 and 49. Those figures represent the salaries and allowances of the officers and men. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman was under the impression that they covered the value of the stores. They do nothing of the kind. The stores are provided for under the regulations, and have nothing to do with these figures. The value of the stores at Malta is a very much larger figure than that to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred.
§ Colonel YATEI took the opportunity to mention Malta and to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could give us any assurance on the subject, because there is a certain amount of anxiety as to the provisioning of Malta in time of war, and whether he could tell us that adequate provision had been made.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThat has reference to military matters, but as far as we are concerned our stores are up to the mark. The hon. Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) asked with regard to the contribution from India and the Colonies. That contribution is distributed in proportion to the extent to which the cost of the service falls upon a particular Vote. 917 The item of £700 to which he referred is an anticipated increase in the amount for victualling in respect of services in the Persian Gulf. It is chiefly victualling.
§ Colonel YATEWhen on the question of the Persian Gulf, can the right hon. Gentleman say if any arrangements have been made with regard to the arming of the ships of the Royal Indian Marine?
§ The CHAIRMANThose questions of military and naval policy certainly do not arise in this Vote.
§ Sir J. D. REESIs this part of the £100,000?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAIt is part of the two put together. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Wick Burghs (Mr. Munro), who asked whether we proposed to establish a canteen at Cromarty, that it is a very premature question to put until the proposals with regard to Cromarty become very much more materialised than they are at the present time. The hon. Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Falle) referred to the question of free kits for the Navy, and asked how that stands now. All ratings now are entitled to free kit on entry as regards compulsory items. Up to the last concession made last year certain ratings did not get a free kit, but they got allowances. For instance, engine-room artificers and shipwrights received a gratuity of £3 10s. towards the cost of a compulsory kit of the value of £8 or £9. Officers, stewards, cooks, artisans, ships' stewards assistants and others received a gratuity of £2 10s. towards the cost of a compulsory kit of the value of from £6 10s. to £8. Now everybody gets a free first issue of a kit. The addition to the cost in making the first issue free already is £8,500 per year. Further than that, I may inform the hon. Member that ratings liable to be employed on coaling are entitled to a money allowance of 10s. per year to provide the necessary clothing for coaling. Engine-room ratings, stokers, and engine-room artificers are entitled to an allowance of 12s. to provide special clothing for wear in the stoke-hole and engine room. Oilskins and watch coats are issued free for the use of men when they are engaged on special duty. Again, when a man is promoted and his new rating involves a change of uniform, he gets a gratuity in aid of it.
I agree with the hon. Member that undoubtedly there is a feeling in the Fleet 918 that not only should the first issue be free, but that the replacements should be at the expense of the Crown and not at the expense of the sailor. I have no doubt that is based on the fact that the soldier and the marine do get the replacements free, but you cannot compare the condition of the soldier and the marine with that of the sailor by merely taking the single item. You have got to take the whole field of occupation and rates of pay and especially non-substantive pay. Practically there is no non-substantive pay in the Army except to the Engineers and Artillery, whereas one in every two seamen is in receipt of daily extra pay varying from 2d. to 1s. 7d. per day. You have got to take into account also the proportion of promotion open to the sailor and to the soldier, which forms a very interesting contrast. I take the total of the seamen class compared with the Army, including the non-commissioned officers. Of leading seamen the proportion is one out of nine as compared with the corporal of one in twenty-three. Of petty officers one in eight as compared with one in twenty-eight of sergeants in the Army. Of chief petty officers one in forty as compared with the colour-sergeant, which is one in one hundred and twenty-two. From the point of view of non-substantive pay, undoubtedly the position of the sailor is more advantageous than that of the soldier. That being so, those things have to be taken into account in dealing with this question of the issue of kit and replacement. As a matter of fact, if we transferred this replacement to the Crown with the cost of the first free issue, it would amount to something like £370,000 per year. I would remind the Committee that the recent increases in sailors' pay amounted to £343,000, leaving out the officers. Certainly, on behalf of the Government, I do not recommend the Committee to take the course suggested as to the free issue of replacements at the present time.
§ Mr. EYRES-MONSELLI desire to ask the right, hon. Gentleman another question as to an item which appears on page 44 of the Estimates for allowances towards the kits of men re-engaging for a second period of continuous service. I see that has fallen from £11,250 to £8,750, which is a very large and marked falling off. Does that mean that there are fewer men re-engaging for continuous service, for if so it is a very serious matter? As to the subject of rum, the First Lord of the 919 Admiralty intimated that the man who received nine-sixteenths of a penny in lieu of rum ration was allowed to change. I think we ought to know how often the men are to be allowed to change, because if they adopted the ingenious suggestion of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City, and changed every other day, they would get free drinks plus a bonus. I hope the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. C. Roberts) will receive no encouragement whatsoever in what he is asking. I think that the men who prefer to take a money ration instead of rum are doing themselves very well at the present moment. I understand from the hon Member's figure, that while the rum ration costs three-sixteenths of a penny, they now get nine-sixteenths of a penny.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI did not say that.
§ Mr. EYRES-MONSELLThe hon. Member for Lincoln said it.
§ Mr. C. ROBERTSThe figure 3–16ths of the calculation does not allow for duty. If you allow for duty, then the price would be very much higher. It is only the fact that the Government does not pay duty which allows for the figure of 3–16ths.
§ Mr. EYRES-MONSELLAt all events they do get a benefit. The hon. Member for Lincoln went on to say that they ought to get a penny instead of nine-sixteenths. He argued as if there was very little difference between nine-sixteenths of a penny and a penny. It is a most extraordinary thing that the Land Taxes and "ninepence for fourpence" have entirely upset the arithmetical proportions of hon. Gentlemen opposite. There is, of course, a very considerable difference. I hope the Admiralty will take a firm stand in this matter, and see that temperance shall not be indulged in at the expense of the nation, including the men who do take the very moderate allowance of half a gill of rum. Of course, the real reason lying behind the suggestion of the hon. Member for Lincoln is to stop all rum, and that sailors should not be allowed to have any drink at all. I should like the hon. Member for Lincoln to go out on board a ship to some place in the tropics where fresh vegetables and fresh meat are very hard to get, and he will find that the very small portion of rum allowed to the sailors is a very great benefit to them for discipline. I myself have derived some benefit from rum 920 in another connection on board a destroyer, where I found that it was the only thing that kept me warm on the bridge. The Navy is costing a great deal too much to indulge cranks at the cost of the nation, and I hope the Admiralty will put their face against this suggestion and will not give the hon. Member for Lincoln the slightest encouragement.
§ Mr. C. ROBERTSI really cannot allow the remarks of the hon. Gentleman to pass by without a word of reference. This suggestion has come even from his own side, and was made by the hon. Member for St. Albans. If my title to speak on behalf of the Navy is questioned, there is one in this House whose title to speak will not be questioned by the hon. Member, and he is the senior Member for Portsmouth (Lord C. Beresford). On more than one occasion he has advocated this, and his authority will not be disputed. He will not be accused of having ulterior motives in his mind which prompt him in this "misguided" action. The Secretary to the Admiralty has told me that I must be content with what I can get. That is not an unusual experience. But I find it a little difficult to exercise the patience which he advises. I should like to ask why the Estimate has gone up so much? I think he said last year that the cost would be only £12,500.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAdissented.
§ Mr. C. ROBERTSI have not the actual words of the statement. I was therefore surprised that he should now put it at £30,000. The right hon. Gentleman did not deal with the point made by the First Lord when he said:—
It is quite true that the extra cost would be more than compensated by the diminution of expenditure which would arise under other heads.I am very anxious to get the support of the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth once more. On previous occasions he has certainly agreed with the view that this would ultimately be a saving to the nation. That is my answer to the hon. Member for Fareham's statement that I want to subsidise at the expense of the nation, people with whose customs and habits I agree. If the Noble Lord is right, there would be a real saving to the nation, and the efficiency of the Service would be increased. The Noble Lord speaks with much greater authority than I can possibly do in this matter, and should like to hear whether he would not support this policy. Putting it at its 921 worst, that it is a slight increase of pay to these men, why should hon. Members object? It is an increase of pay which might go all round, except in those cases where the individual preferred the spirit ration to the increase of pay.
§ Mr. A. LEEI do not object to any reasonable increase of pay to the Navy. What I object to is subsidising personal habits. If you subsidise a man because he does not drink, why do you not subsidise a man because he does not smoke? Personally, I think that smoking is a pernicious habit, but I do not suggest that people who do not smoke should be subsidised at the expense of the State. If there is any more money going to Navy Votes, we want it for purely Navy purposes.
§ Mr. C. ROBERTSThis would be a Navy purpose, as it would increase efficiency. I cannot carry the matter any further to-day. My right hon. Friend says that he will have a report in six months. Perhaps we shall then be able to bring the matter up again, and I hope that by that time he will be in a more melting mood.
§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORDThe hon. Member opposite has referred to me on this question. I have often spoken in this House about the rum ration. My view is that it is a contract with the men on entry. I have often put it on the ship's notice that the defaulters' sheet is added to by men getting a little drunk as a result of the rum ration. But I never wanted to do away with the rum ration, in view of the fact that it is a contract with the men. I always wanted to give them a fair price for the rum they did not take up. The same argument applies to this as to teetotalism. It is necessary for some people to have alcohol, and it is not necessary for others. I would do anything I could to encourage temperance. But temperance reformers, I think, are too violent. Do everything you can to increase temperance anywhere, but particularly in the Fleet. I think you would do that if you gave the men a fair amount of money for the rum they did not take up. This is what really happens on the lower deck. There are many temperance men in the mess who do not drink rum, but the rum is taken up. It goes into the mess, and other men get the advantage of it. It is a sort of good fellowship. The man who does not drink rum says, "What is the good of this small sum to me? I may as 922 well let my mates have it." That is how the men get intoxicated. If you gave the men who do not want the ruin a fair price, it would go a long way to encourage temperance. I agree with my hon. Friend that we do not want to pay men to be sober. That is not at all a good idea. If we have money to spend, we want to spend it on the fighting efficiency of the Fleet. I think, however, that you would encourage temperance if you paid a fair price for the rum that was not taken up. With regard to the kit question, the right hon. Gentleman has gone some way towards dealing fairly with the men. A free kit on entry has been granted to all ratings, but there is no allowance for keeping up the kit. I think that ought to be done. As far as the kit goes, the Army is at a distinct advantage as compared with the Navy. I do not mean that the Army has too much advantage, but there ought to be an annual allowance for keeping up the kit. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to remedy this unfairness to the men.
§ Colonel GREIGI am sure that the Committee is very much encouraged by the Noble Lord's statement. We who are not intimately acquainted with these matters look to him for some direction. He has admitted that my hon. Friend's statement was in the main correct. He has stated from his experience that the amount of intoxication on ships where the allowance was taken was rather larger than on those ships where it was not. That seems to me to confirm the view of my hon. Friend that if the authorities saw their way to incur this slight expenditure, it would conduce to Naval efficiency. The Noble Lord has also approved the suggestion that the allowance calculated at nine-sixteenths of a penny is not sufficient. It seems to me, in view of the experience of the Noble Lord, that the authorities would do well to look into this question a little more closely, and see if they cannot come nearer the penny suggested by my hon. Friend. No one on this side would wish to deprive the men of their rum. We know perfectly well, as the Noble Lord has stated, that there is a contract with the men. But let us be quite clear what the contract is. The contract is an alternative one; that is to say, that the men shall have as part of the remuneration for their services a rum allowance or a fair money allowance in lieu thereof. We suggest that it might be better, with a view to the efficiency of the service, that a rather larger and 923 fairer allowance should be made, so that the men might be induced by the knowledge that it was a fair allowance to take the money. I hope, therefore, the authorities will look into the matter, and see if something more cannot be done.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI did not hear the commencement of the Debate; therefore I am not certain whether nine-sixteenths of a penny is a fair amount or not.
§ Lord C. BERESFORDIt is not.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThat is to say, it does not represent the cost to the Navy. I understand from my Noble Friend, that there is a contract with the Admiralty under which the men receive a certain ration of rum. If there is a contract, it ought to be observed. Then comes the further question, shall a man who does not take the ration which he is entitled to receive under his contract be given something in lieu thereof? On that my hon. Friend says, Why should you give something to a man to make him a teetotaler, when you do not give something to a man to make him a non-smoker? That seems to me a very reasonable argument. It is not the duty of the Admiralty to act as disciples of the hon. Member for Lincoln in the promotion of temperance. That has nothing whatever to do with the Admiralty. On the other hand, this point has impressed itself very strongly upon me. A man says "I am not going to drink this rum, but why should I put a certain amount of money into the pockets of the Admiralty? If I took the rum, the Admiralty would have to pay for it. If I do not take it, they make a profit out of me." To avoid that, he says that he will give it to my Noble Friend who would like two allowances instead of one.
§ Lord C. BERESFORDI do not take it.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI was not aware of that. Then he might give it to my hon. Friend below me (Mr. Eyres-Monsell). The question arises, what are you prepared to allow under these circumstances? The contract ought to be observed, but there is something to be said for the point of view that the man who does not drink ruin is entitled to receive something in lieu of it. I think also that it is not advisable to give my hon. Friend two rations of runs when he ought to have only one. What does it cost the Navy?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAMaterially less than nine-sixteenths of a penny.
§ Sir F. BANBURYFor facility of calculation, might I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should make it eight-sixteenths?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAWe give nine-sixteenths of a penny in lieu of the rum ration. If those concerned are prepared to take eight-sixteenths, we will agree to it at once, but I should not like to propose it.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI am afraid I have not made myself clear. My point is this: that what we ought to do is to give the man that which it costs the Admiralty.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAHe gets more.
§ 5.0 P.M.
§ Sir F. BANBURYHe gets more; why? I object to giving him more. If there is money going about I feel, like my right hon. Friend below me, that it ought to be spent upon the service of the Navy, and not upon creating disciples for the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lincoln (Mr. C. Roberts). I do think that the contract should be observed. In observing a contract what you have to find out is what does it cost the Navy, owing to a man not taking up his rum. Whatever it costs the Navy, you ought to give the man, and not a penny more.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThat may be.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThis, after all, seems to me to be a very extravagant business, and I do not know that we might not go into it in the Public Accounts Committee. My Noble Friend says it costs the Navy certain sums of money.
§ Lord C. BERESFORDMay I explain? All naval officers know, and indeed the officers in both Services know, that the most of the crime is the result of drink. That sends men to prison, and that is very expensive, because you have to get other men to fill up their places. The crime that is caused by drinking is a real expense. I think you reduce that if you reduce the possibility of what I call good fellowship among the men who do not take their runs, but let their mess-mates drink it.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI look at the matter I from a business point of view. I am not 925 here either to promote temperance, or to encourage drunkenness. I am looking at the matter from a purely business point of view. Is there or is there not a contract with the men who receive a certain amount of rum? If the man does not take up the rum, then a businesslike sum should be given to him in lieu of that rum, and I say that the businesslike sum to give him is the amount that the rum costs the Admiralty.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThat is the alternative contract.
§ Sir F. BANBURYYes, but the hon. Member opposite says that because it costs three-sixteenths of a penny he is not going to give the man nine-sixteenths. My suggestion is that eight-sixteenths, or a halfpenny, should be given, and that amount is one which could be easily calculated. Why should a man be given a fixed nine-sixteenths of a penny, which is not a sum that can be provided if a man does not want his rum on any one day?
§ Sir F. BANBURYThat is all very well, but suppose it is a wet day, why should not a man have a little rum if he wants it? What, is the hon. Gentleman a teetotaler too?
§ Sir F. BANBURYIt would be very much easier if you calculated it in a coin of the realm, instead of in an imaginary amount, namely, nine-sixteenths of a penny. I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Member opposite who thinks that the amount ought to be more.
§ Colonel GREIGWhat I said was that I thought the amount ought to be the fair amount as put by the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth.
§ Sir F. BANBURYA fair amount surely from a business point of view. I understood the present was a business Government, that one of their claims when they came into power was that they were going to have clear thinking upon all matters. This is a very simple business proposition. If you do not give a man a certain article that you contract to give him, and he prefers to take a money payment, you 926 should give him the money value of the article; no more and no less. That is what I think ought to be done. I do not know whether it is worth while moving an Amendment upon the point, but I really do think that the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary should carefully consider the matter. If not, I may feel that I shall be compelled to move a reduction.
§ Mr. C. ROBERTSIf I quite grasp the view of the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth, what you want to do is, in view of the contract made with the men by the Admiralty, you should give the man who does not take the rum a fair equivalent. The only question, therefore, is as to what a fair equivalent really is. The right hon. Baronet opposite thought we ought to cut the amount down. I do not think that would be very popular. It has been suggested from the other side of the House that what I am suggesting is not very popular in the Navy.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI was not thinking of what was popular or what was unpopular, but what was just.
§ Mr. C. ROBERTSIt has been said in the first place that it was not popular, and I am endeavouring to argue whether or not it is just. I want to put my contention from a business point of view. The whole calculation is complicated by the fact that the Government, unlike the private individual, does not pay duty on this drink. You ought to calculate that in, because if you are going to deal with the man who does not take up his rum from the point of view of the contract, what you have to do is to find the fair equivalent in his mind for the drink which he gives up. Surely, therefore, the real point is what this drink will cost in the open market; what the man would be able to get for it there? If you are going to pay on the basis of the contract—and I accept that—if the Secretary of the Admiralty is going to give the man a fair equivalent market value, it should be the ordinary current price of the drink. That is really what the man is entitled to on the basis of his contract.
§ Mr. C. ROBERTSI think it is much nearer a penny, probably more than a penny; so that hon. Members will see am really asking for less than I might ask for.
§ Sir J. D. REESThis is the only chance which we have of dealing with these matters, and I understand that these Estimates are not framed exclusively or even primarily for experts, but to be understanded of the people. I will not go back to the matter which has just been referred to, and in which I heartily agree with my hon. Friends who are against the practice being introduced into yet another Department of the State of indirectly forwarding what is known as social reform—or temperance—at the expense of the taxpayers. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would kindly look at page 287 (the Index). He will see there a reference to a contribution by the Government of India on account of certain provisions, and we are referred to page 45, Vote 2, Sub-head Q, or to Q 2. If he looks at the reference in page 45, it is to be recoveries on account of Marine Clothing and Appointments sold to the Royal Marines. It may be my fault, and an explanation may clear it up, but it does not appear to me that there is reference to this matter in the Index. I believe the reference should be to page 45, Q 6, and not to Q 2. It is the point upon which the right hon. Gentleman referred when he spoke before, but I am not clear about it. It must not be thought that I am raising this in a mere spirit of criticism. It is really a very important matter. I want to get at the totals of these contributions by the Government of India. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that many arguments have been based in this House upon the fact that there is no sufficient contribution by the Government of India to the Fleet. I want to know whether I am correct on this point, and also whether there is a difference not contained in these Estimates, because I cannot find out any statement of what are the total contributions. If it is here, where is it? I am not complaining of the totals, but I want to be referred to it.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAPage 9 of the Estimates might be looked at.
§ Sir J. D. REESIt is not in the Index. It appears to me that the Index is wrong.
§ Dr. MACNAMARANo, no.
§ Sir J. D. REESI trust the right hon. Gentleman will do me the honour to get up and explain the matter, and tell me where I can find the items I want. The whole thing may be perfectly clear to the experts, but it is not clear to me. What is the difference for instance, 928 between a master miller and baker and a leading man of millers and bakers? In the case of the former, these officers are combined in one individual, and he has neither a minimum nor a maximum; consequently, not being in the Department of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he has no increment. There appears to be one such officer with a fixed salary at Malta. Turning to the leading man of millers and bakers, whatever may be the difference between him and the master miller and baker, there is only one such functionary at the Royal Victoria Yard on a minimum of £140, rising by annual increments of £5 to a maximum of £150. Apparently two such officers do not revolve in one sphere. What is the difference between them? Why in the one case is there one functionary with a fixed pay of £200, while in the other case the officer, apparently for performing exactly similar functions so far as I can judge, is treated differently—though I never came across such an officer and have not heard of one, except the chief baker to the Pharaoh of Exodus? What is the difference between their functions that accounts for the difference in their pay?
§ Mr. FALLEMay I refer back to the question asked to be made clear by the Member for Evesham and also the question of not getting Marines?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAReferring to the question of the rum rations, may I inform the hon. Baronet that there is an alternative contract with the men. The man can either have the rum or nine-sixteenths of a penny. That is the original contract that we are carrying out. I cannot make it a penny, neither can I agree with what the hon. Baronet has suggested that we should reduce it. The allowance is a money value greater than the value of the rum without the duty, and nine-tenths must for the present remain. I think the course we took of reversing the procedure and making every man over twenty years of age ask for the rum if he wants it a very salutary proceeding. There was a question put as to page 44—seamen's clothing: allowances towards the kits of men on re-engagement for a second period of continuous service. That was estimated at £11,250 last year and this year at £8,750. I was asked whether that represented any change in policy, or what did it represent; whether the effect of it was that we have had a smaller proportion of men re-engaging?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI have explained already that whereas in the past some got an allowance and some free kits, we are now giving all free kits. Then comes the £8,700 a year. I am afraid I cannot carry that point any further. The £8,700 does not mean a change of policy in any way, and it does not necessarily mean that a smaller number of men are re-engaging.
§ Mr. FALLEThe right hon. Gentleman missed my point. I quite understand the free gift to men joining the Service. What I ask is why there should not be a free gift to men when they are re-engaging. That is a time when they are most valuable to the Service, and that is the time when we should try to secure men by every means in our power.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAWe recently raised the scale of pay by a considerable sum—over £300,000 a year, and we give every man a free kit on entry. I cannot recommend a free kit on re-engaging. With regard to the Indian contribution, the hon. Member for Nottingham will find the whole of that on pages 8 and 9 of the Estimates.
§ Sir J. D. REESThere were other contributions in addition to this.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAYes. There was £3,400 in connection with Indian troop service and £64,000 repayment to His Majesty's ships engaged in the suppression of the arms traffic in the Persian Gulf. He will find that on page 45 there were a number of appropriations. When he puts it to me that these come out of the £100,000, I do not know. Sixty-four thousand pounds is in connection with the suppression of the arms traffic in Persia, and the item recovered on account of His Majesty's ships in Indian waters has nothing to do with the Indian contribution respecting the Persian Gulf Arms Traffic at all.
§ Mr. FALLEFormerly the colour-sergeants and the ranks above were allowed out of barracks in mufti in the Royal Marine Artillery and others. That order was changed, and all those in the ranks were allowed to go out in mufti; and then there was a change again, and the Admiralty came back to its original order.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI should be very glad to confer with the hon. Member upon that point. I do not see how it comes in on this Vote. It is an Admiralty Regulation.
§ The CHAIRMANIt must be raised on another occasion.
§ Question put, and agreed to.