HC Deb 08 May 1913 vol 52 cc2329-50
Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE

The Financial Secretary to the Admiralty was good enough to say, in reply to a question yesterday by the Noble Lord the senior Member for Portsmouth (Lord C. Beresford), that he would make a statement to-day with regard to a question which has great interest for the workmen of the Royal Dockyards. I think he also said that he would give the Admiralty answers to the petitions which he himself received at the various dockyards. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman not only received these petitions with every sympathy, but has given them his most careful attention. I do not wish in any way to criticise the right hon. Gentleman before he speaks or to anticipate what he is likely to say, but I should like to call attention to one or two matters which greatly concern the men in the dockyards and the building of our ships. The first of these questions is the establishment in the Royal yards. I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that since the Government has been in office the establishment of the Royal dockyards has gone down. Prior to the year 1907 the number of established men authorised in the Royal dockyards was 7,000, and the number of men employed in 1906–7 was 25,240, so that in that year 28 per cent. of the men employed were established. The Estimates for this year show that the number of men established is 6,447, the top figure being 6,500, and the total number of men employed is 38,000—that is to say, the percentage has fallen to 17 per cent., or 2 per cent. below the total of the previous year. Thus in seven years of Liberal administration we have seen a reduction of 500 men in the establishment and the proportion of pensioners fall from 28 to 17 per cent. While the number employed has gone up by 13,000 to meet the larger ship-building programme, the proportion of pensioners has dropped by 11 per cent. Both in the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty, in presenting the Estimates, and in that of the Financial Secretary we heard a great deal about the additions which have been made to the workmen's wages. I do not deny that additions have been made, but I think it would be interesting to know what proportion the saving the Admiralty has made upon the establishment bears to the additions to the dockyard men's wages. It seems to me, to use a homely phrase, that what the Exchequer has lost on the swings it has made up on the roundabouts.

After twelve years' service at sea naval shipwrights may return to the dockyards and become established. Some time ago the Financial Secretary told us that the establishment of these men would be in addition to the present numbers. Looking at the Estimates, I find no provision to carry out that statement although the right hon. Gentleman knows that next October we shall have a considerable number of naval shipwrights returning to the Royal yards. What do the Admiralty propose to do in order to prevent the depletion of our staff of naval shipwrights? They invite these men to break their contracts, and I suppose in doing that they have some good reason. They appear to be under the impression that the new conditions they are offering these men are so attractive that they will be ready to give up their privilege of coming back to the yards. Unfortunately, the naval shipwrights do not view the thing in the same light. They say that the new conditions are not so good as the old conditions, and therefore they do not propose to give up the right of return. They will therefore come back to the yards, which means a great many more men will be put on the establishment. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the coming back of these men will not interfere with the number of dockyard shipwrights who ought to be established. If that is the case, how is it that nothing appears in the Estimates to warrant such a statement? It has been the custom for a number of years to establish shipwright apprentices two years after they had served their time in the yards. This custom has been allowed to remain in abeyance for a considerable time. When these boys got into the yards, they hoped and expected they would be established within two years of their time, and non-establishment has disappointed a great number. If the right hon. Gentleman would go back to the old system of establishing apprentices in the yards after two years, I think he would be doing a very useful thing, and he would no doubt retain a greater number of shipwrights in the yards than he is able to do under the present circumstances. I am quite pleased to see there are more apprentices coming into the yards. I have no doubt that to the Financial Secretary a great deal of that is due, because he has taken a very keen and sympathetic interest in these apprentices. But I submit that if there were two examinations a year a still larger number of the apprentices would be obtained. Moreover, the change would assist the fathers and mothers who live in the dockyard towns to get their boys placed out well, and altogether it would be a very good thing for the country at large as well as for the shipbuilding industry.

The Admiralty at the present moment give no pensions to hired men, and yet these men to a great extent work the same number of years in the dockyards as the men who become established. They are in a way just as capable workmen, and there is no fault as a rule to find with their work. Establishment is a game of chance. I would not say that it is a gamble, though it is very much the same kind of thing. One man is taken, another is left. One man gets on the establishment and gets a pension, and the other remains a hired man all his time, and he has to retire at sixty with only a gratuity. I am sure the Financial Secretary will give the matter his attention and endeavour to bring about some more equitable arrangement which will commend itself not only to the Admiralty but also to the House of Commons. The men want a pension system which will be guaranteed by the Admiralty. I suggest that if the right hon. Gentleman offered the men the services of the Government actuary and asked them to draw up a definite scheme and submit it to the Admiralty, then the Board would have before them a document upon which they might act. If the Financial Secretary is prepared to do that, I think I may answer on behalf of the men that they would be willing to give up certain very substantial privileges which they now possess. The labourers in the Royal dockyards are divided into two classes. There is the ordinary labourer, and there is the skilled labourer. Last year the right hon. Gentleman read to the House a very pathetic letter which he had received from a skilled labourer at 22s. per week. He told the House that it was a very small sum for this man to live upon. After various payments had been made there only remained 1s. 3½d. per week to cover the cost of clothing and boots, medical attendance, and other incidental expenses. What did the Admiralty proceed to do? They proceeded to give 1s. extra a week to the ordinary labourer, raising his wage from 21s. to 22s., the very amount which the man was receiving whose pathetic letter the Financial Secretary had read to the House, adding it was impossible that sort of thing should continue any longer.

What did the right hon. Gentleman do for the skilled labourer? He also raised him 1s., but he only raised the man at the bottom of the ladder, the intermediate rates remaining as before. I believe I am right in saying that within the last two or three weeks the Admiralty have admitted they made a mistake by issuing an order giving the 1s. rise to the intermediate rates. Even that is not sufficient. What the Admiralty should do is to consider the question on a businesslike basis. They know very well that the cost of living, and of rent and everything that has to do with the existence of a man and his family, has gone up in price. They know that the rise has been a very considerable one. In fact, I think I am right in placing it at 20 per cent. during the last thirteen or fourteen years. Under these circumstances, the Board ought to give the ordinary labourer 24s. a week as a minimum, and they should give the skilled labourer 26s. as a minimum. Perhaps the House is not quite familiar with the work of these skilled labourers. They rise from ordinary labourers. They receive a certain amount of training in the yard which enables them to do work done outside by different men following different trades who would have been apprenticed to those trades. The skilled labourers begin at 23s. and go up to 30s. a week, with a special maximum of 31s. They are doing exactly the same work as men outside are doing for a very much larger wage, and, therefore, the Admiralty, though they train the men themselves, are saving a very considerable sum on this class of work. I submit that that should not be the case, and that they ought to pay the men very nearly or exactly the same sum as is paid to men doing similar work outside.

If the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty will look at the petitions presented by the labourers he will find, as I have found after making a calculation with some care, that the approximate annual cost, if the rates were raised in accordance with the men's request, taking the maximum at 31s. and 32s., would be £65,185 and £65,505, respectively. If he takes the other line, which I hope he may do, and gives the larger increase, the total cost of a 34s. maximum would be £104,369. If he will only look at the matter in a business-like way he will see it is not a very large sum of money for the Admiralty to pay, more especially when you consider that the First Lord, in his speech on the Naval Estimates, did not hesitate to tell the House that prices had gone up so greatly that he had to pay a considerably larger sum now for the building of ships in the contractors' hands and for the materials with which the ships had to be supplied. I think he went so far as to put the extra cost at £250,000. If that is the case, why should he grudge paying from £65,000 to £100,000 in order to give these men a proper living wage? That is a point which I venture, with all respect, to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman.

I now come to the dockyard shipwrights. The Financial Secretary has received a deputation from these men, and I understand he paid very great attention to everything they put forward. The Financial Secretary always does that, and I should like to say here that I have never yet gone to the right hon. Gentleman but that he has done everything he possibly could to fully understand the case I have presented, and he has always been exceedingly fair in the answers he has given. I feel sure that the shipwrights, if the same attention is paid to their case, will receive a substantial rise in, their pay. Last year the right hon. Gentleman announced, with a great deal of gusto, that he was going to give the shipwrights in the Royal dockyards the magnificent rise of 6d. per week. That was hardly what I expected from the Admiralty. At the very time the Chancellor of the Exchequer imposed on these men the necessity of paying 6½d. weekly for their insurance, and, therefore, they got no rise at all. What the right hon. Gentleman gave with one hand the Chancellor of the Exchequer took away with the other. I am speaking now on behalf of the greater number of the shipwrights in His Majesty's dockyards. There are 7,000 of them, and at least 6,700 have signed a petition setting, out that their present wage is inadequate. They are getting 36s. What is the wage given for similar work outside? For new work on the Clyde, on the Tyne, at Barrow, and at Birkenhead, it is 40s. 6d., and for repair work from 42s. to 45s. is paid. In the Royal dockyard for exactly the same kinds of work only 36s. is paid, whether it be repair work or new work. I think the Admiralty should give a substantial advance on that amount, especially on the ground of the increased cost of living.

There is another point which ought to be emphasised, and that is that these men are doing very responsible work indeed, work of a very important kind. You cannot get them at any price. You were, if you are not still, short of shipwrights. Within the last year you have done everything you could, through the Labour Exchanges and in every kind of way, to get a proper complement of shipwrights for your yards. With that knowledge, and in view of the increased cost of living, as well as with the knowledge that men outside are getting from 40s. to 45s. weekly, it would be wise for the Admiralty to give these men the sum they ask, namely, 40s. per week. When the Admiralty makes a contract with a contractor for the building of a ship it insists that the men shall be paid the trade union rate of wages. Shipwrights consequently are paid 40s. 6d. a week when engaged on a ship being built for the Admiralty by a contractor, but when the Admiralty itself is building a ship it only gives the shipwrights it employs 36s. weekly. I say it is unfair and unreasonable and a very great mistake to adopt such a cheeseparing policy when you know you must have the ships and that you want good men, whom you cannot get unless you pay them properly. I have perhaps trespassed too long on the time of the House, but these points are very important, and, no doubt, have led to the present unrest in the yards. If the Financial Secretary is able to make a satisfactory statement; if he is able to say that the Admiralty, having considered all the points, are willing to give what would be considered a satisfactory rise in the rates of pay to the men in their employment, I feel certain, speaking on behalf of men whom I have had the pleasure of talking to, that they will be both satisfied and grateful, and that you will get out of them the best work that they can possibly give. The only thing they ask is that you should pay them a proper and decent wage.

Mr. BARNES

I shall not venture to say anything about the proportion of men on the establishment, or pensions, or any of those other technical matters referred to by the hon. Member for Devonport (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke); neither shall I say much about wages in the dockyards, because that would be travelling over the same ground twice. In regard to that matter I wish to read to the House a Resolution which is printed on the Journals of the House, dated 6th March, 1893, which I think ought still to operate in determining the policy of the Admiralty in regard to wages in the dockyard. On that date Sir John Gorst moved a Resolution declaring:— That, in the opinion of this House, no person should in Her Majesty's Naval establishments be engaged at wages insufficient for a proper maintenance, and that the conditions of labour as regards hours, wages, insurance against accidents, provision for old age, etc., should be such as to afford an example to private employers throughout the country. That Resolution is just over twenty years old, and it is twenty years overdue of being put into operation. I hope we shall hear from the right hon. Gentleman to-day that at last the Government mean business. I take it that that Resolution meant nothing less than the frank abandonment by the Government of that day, which was a Liberal Government, of competitive wages so far as their own workmen were concerned, and that the wages should be such as would yield a proper maintenance. It was further emphasised by the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman in his declaration that— the Government ought to be in the first flight of employers. 6.0 P.M.

I have only to say, backing up the hon. Gentlemen who represent dockyard constituencies, that it is within the knowledge of everybody that the Government, so far from being in the first flight of employers, have paid wages to their labourers upon which it is not possible for them to secure decent maintenance. The wage of 22s. a week which they have been paying up to date is not sufficient to secure the ordinary decencies, let alone the comforts of life. I join with the hon. Member for Devonport in the hope that the wages of the labourers will be raised to at least 24s. a week. It should be even more. Even if it is raised to that sum the wages will be no more in the way of real wages than they were when the Resolution I have quoted was passed. At that time the wages were 18s. a week. I find that in 1890, three years before that date, a change had been made by the then Conservative Government involving an annual charge of £100,000 so far as the dockyards were concerned. Therefore the Government have a good example shown to them by a Government of the opposite persuasion. The need at the present time is quite as great as it was then, because although the wage is now 22s., as compared with 18s., probably the cost of living has increased more in proportion than the 4s. Therefore I hope there will be a substantial rise for the labourers, and that the mechanics will be brought up to 40s., which will only put them on a plane comparable with their fellow-craftsmen outside as regards wages. Although I know that they work eight hours, and that the bulk of the men outside work longer, that is no argument against paying them the same wages, because although the firms in the engineering and shipbuilding industry outside work only eight hours, they pay the men who are working eight hours exactly the same wages as are paid to the men in other yards working nine hours per day. There is no warrant for the Admiralty bringing forward the working of eight hours per day as a privilege and weighing it up and deducting something from the wages in respect to it. I hope there will be no more of these paltry paupers' prizes of 6d. for the labourers or mechanics. I hope that at least the labourers will get 24s. and the mechanics 40s. I shall have no hesitation in advising the mechanics to keep up the controversy until they get their wages up to the £2 level.

I desire to say a few words about the Navy training scheme. I have mentioned this matter so often that I am afraid some of my fellow Members will think I am keeping a bee in my bonnet. But I make no apology for introducing the subject again, because so far I have received no adequate satisfaction or anything in the nature of an explanation why this scheme has been set up or continued with, as I believe, danger to the efficiency of the Navy. It is altogether unfair to large numbers of people in the community who cannot put their sons into the Navy except as fetchers and carriers to those who have money. I find that a boy at Osborne or Dartmouth costs his parents, in round figures, from £120 to £130 per annum. That is not in fees, but is spent by the parents in respect to each boy, and includes the fees and various other things in the way of expenses. There are not many people in this community who can afford to spend that amount of money upon a boy of thirteen years of age. The position has got worse recently, first of all, because by the scheme of 1905 the engineer officer is lumped in with the executive officer, and therefore you are drawing a very much larger body of men to fill the executive rank. The position is also worsened because we have now an increased Navy. Since this peace-loving Government came into office seven years ago, they have increased the Navy by 50 per cent., and are still increasing it year after year. That involves a larger number of executive officers, owing to the lumping of the engineers with the bridgemen, and it means drawing a larger number of boys from the same section of the com- munity who supplied these ranks before. It is obviously unfair to those who are shut out, because of their poverty, and it must necessarily involve running the risk of getting a less efficient man for your engineer officer and for the executive officer as well, having regard to the fact that you are drawing a larger number from the same section of the community. All this has been admitted over and over again from the Front Bench, and I refer to it to-day because I want some definite statement of a change. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted the evil. Some years ago his predecessor talked about meeting the difficulty by sending the hat round somehow or another for those whose parents were too poor to pay the full fee. That never matured. More recently a scheme has been brought into operation whereby some young fellows are being drawn from the public schools, and admitted at a very much reduced fee—I believe £50. I do not think that will meet the situation either, because it will simply mean that the officers in the Navy will be drawn from two classes of people, and there will be friction between them. To my mind, there is no solution of this difficulty except a very large reduction of the fee imposed upon the parents of boys who go to Osborne and Dartmouth, and who are destined to positions of responsibility in the Navy, thereby opening up a field of selection to a very much larger section of the community. I hope to-day we may have some intimation from the right hon. Gentleman that that will be done.

Now I come to the artificers. The conditions of naval service—I think I have the support of the Noble Lord in this—are now such as to make these men much more important than ever they were before. The evolution of the Navy has been from sail to steam, and from that to electricity and hydraulics and submarines, and now aircraft, and every step taken in regard to evolution of the Navy in this regard has been to make it more complicated, and therefore to make it more necessary that the man who does the practical work in regard to the engines and machinery should have full technical and even some scientific knowledge, as well as the ability simply to work with his tools, and do what he is told with them. I believe, on the whole, you have got such a man. At all events, in all the time that we have had this question upon the floor there never has been any complaint made in regard to the artificer, either as to his disciplinary spirit, to his efficiency as a mechanic, to his zeal in getting about his work, or anything. It has generally been admitted that you have in the ranks of the artificers in the Navy a thoroughly efficient body of men, but they have not always been treated as they ought to have been. They ought to be looked after with some comfort while on board ship. They ought to be able to retire to a quiet place for study when they come off their watch, they ought to have fairly comfortable messing conditions, and they ought to be treated in every way differently and better than they are treated to-day. There has been no change in the wages of the artificer class since the year 1882—that is to say for thirty-one years, during which wages—money wages, at all events—have risen very considerably, and during which there has been an enormous increase in the cost of goods outside. It is admitted by everybody that wages outside have considerably advanced, and yet the wages of this very deserving class of men in the Navy have remained exactly the same as they were thirty-one years ago. You admit a man on a wage of 5s. 6d. a day, and although he is paid seven days a week, yet at the same time he has to work all the hours he is required to work. Sometimes we are told that the pension might be reasonably regarded as a set-off against the work the man in Government employment does. Unlike the ordinary workman outside, he works, if necessary, not eight or nine hours, but sometimes ten or twelve, and even more than that. He does not complain so long as he has recognition, pay, and the prospect of promotion, which we think are his due. It is said that he has chances of promotion, but, as a matter of fact, his chances are rather less in recent years than they have been, because of the fact that, instead of paying him better, and, therefore, attracting the best men in the engineering profession to the ranks, you have introduced a new class of men to take the place of artificers at a lower rate of wages—I believe it is 4s. per day. I am glad to have had this opportunity of offering a few words of protest, in the first place, against the exclusion of everybody but the rich from positions of responsibility in the Navy; and, secondly, against the contemptuous treatment of a very large body of men who have done good service, who are still willing to do good service, but who are not recognised as they ought to be, either as regards pay, chances of promotion, or anything else.

I want to say a word or two in regard to the application of the Fair-Wages Clause to the ordinary contractors for the Navy. I say that the Admiralty are not at all energetic in giving fair and square application of the Fair-Wages Clause. I have heard of numerous cases during the last few years where the clause has not been adhered to. For instance, there is a shop in the West-End of London, to which I have referred on the floor of the House more than once. I have spent days on that case, and here we are, after two or three years, and I suppose that, although the case has been referred to at least a dozen times, at this very moment that firm is not complying with the conditions of the Fair-Wages Clause. They are paying a less rate for night shifts and overtime than is generally paid throughout the whole district of London. They are not paying a very large body of mechanics in their shop the proper rate of wages. I will make a suggestion. Hitherto it has been the practice of the Admiralty to require proof of these cases of maladministration of the Fair-Wages Clause when they have been brought up. We have been asked to give such details regarding breaches of the clause as names and rates of wages, and we invariably find that when we have supplied those names and other details we are told, "It may be true that they are not getting the right rate of wages, but they are not engaged on our work."

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara)

indicated dissent.

Mr. BARNES

Very often. I think a fair and square interpretation of fair wages would be that Government work should be given only to employers of labour who are fair in the sense of paying all their workmen the proper or standard rate of wages. That is the only satisfactory solution of the problem, because though we thought three years ago, when we got the Resolution amended, that we had at last arrived at a solution, seeing that the Government contractors were going to have imposed upon them the necessity of paying what good employers pay, we find that we are very little forrader, and the only solution is that Government contractors shall be only those people who employ, I do not say trade unionists, but men who are paid trade union rates of wages, or the rates of wages generally paid to trade unionists in that district.

Major GUEST

Both the preceding speakers have mentioned the question of wages in the dockyard. There is at present in the dockyard a considerable feeling of unrest. When the Naval Estimates were raised this year both the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow and another hon. Member drew the attention of the Admiralty to this fact, and said that, unless the question was sympathetically looked into, there would be some action taken as a protest against the delay in dealing with this matter. A protest has taken place. In some of the yards the men have refused to work overtime until their protest had been dealt with in this respect. The dockyard worker in relation to his employer is in a different position from the man who is working outside, because his hand to a certain extent is tied by the fact of the deferred pay, either pension or gratuity, which he has earned during his previous service. This makes it more difficult for him to put forward his case in the same way as ordinary workmen would do with an ordinary civil employer. The two main causes of the unrest are the rise in the cost of living and the advance in wages which has been given in the civil yards. I remember that in the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn, on the Minimum Wage Resolution on the Address, he showed that the increase in the cost of living in the last five years was something between 25 and 30 per cent., and that the purchasing power of the sovereign is far less now than it was a few years ago. In addition, in a dockyard town we find that the rents of houses have gone up. All this adds to the difficulty which dockyard workers have experienced. The Government have done a considerable amount of good by the increase in wages in yards during the last six years, which has amounted to £142,000, but, on the total scale of wages paid, this only comes to about 5 per cent., whereas in the civil yards, largely owing to the pressure of work and other causes, the increase in wages has been 15 per cent. This discrepancy in the rate of increase in the dockyards and in the civil yards is the main cause of the discontent and unrest. But quite apart from the discrepancy in the rates of wages paid to the men in both cases, the men in the dockyard are earning on an average between 4s. and 5s. less than the men who are doing the same work outside.

To be honest, I think that this is penalising the man too much. I admit that the dockyard worker has advantages which his brother workman outside does not enjoy. He has his pension, he has four days' holiday a year, he has the forty-eight week, and he has continuous employment. But the man is hardly able to insure himself against bad times when so great a proportion as 4s. is taken out of an income of something like 28s. or 30s. a week. I have had no opportunity of consulting the men, but I am not sure that they do not feel they would rather be paid the trade union rate of wage and not have so great a value placed on the concession which the Admiralty claim that they are giving. I should like to ascertain the views of the men on that part of the case. Although there is a great feeling in many of the yards that the establishment should be increased, personally, I believe some good will be done to the workmen in the yard by paying them a better remunerative wage to carry them through the difficulties which they experience in life, than that they should only consider the question of being on the establishment to the end of their lives. Another question has reference to hired men and the pension scheme. They do not ask the Admiralty to provide them a pension, but they are most desirous that the Admiralty should give them assistance to work out the scheme for themselves. I am informed that the Secretary to the Admiralty met a deputation from the dockyards the other day and discussed this subject. It was stated that the men were willing to resign the gratuities that they get at the end of their service, and also to be deprived to the extent of 5 per cent. of their weekly wage in order to form the nucleus of a scheme. The Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, in answer to a question a few days ago, said he hoped that he might be able to assist the men in this matter, and if, in the result they can work out a scheme for themselves, the men will owe a debt of gratitude to the Admiralty.

Lord CHARLES BERESFORD

I did not intend to address the House, as the right hon. Gentleman promised me yesterday that he would make a full statement in respect of the grievances of the dockyard workers, which have caused such grave discontent, and which many of us think justify the men-in bringing them forward. But, in the circumstances, I wish to make one or two observations on what has been said. The hon. Member opposite made some remarks on the question of education, and said he had a bee in his bonnet on the subject. If he has a bee in his bonnet it is a very sensible bee. The education scheme of 1902 has absolutely failed. This is proved by the fact that the Marine branch has been knocked out of it, and we have gone back to where we were before. The scheme has not supplied the number of officers we wanted, and we have now to get officers from three different classes—from the lower deck, from the schools, and from the Royal Naval Reserve. That is entirely because the scheme has absolutely failed. I hope that the Admiralty will not persist in saying that it is a success when everybody knows that it is not. In regard to artificers, the hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in claiming all that he did for them. We are very short of engineering officers, so short, that I personally think that the position will become dangerous. Why not promote engineering officers from the rank of the artificers as is similarly done in other branches of the Service. The men have drawn up a very good scheme themselves, and the Admiralty might just as well do what they ask because they will have to do it by and by. They are so short of officers that these men will have to be on the quarter deck. They are invaluable for the work of a man-of-war, from the artificer to the engineer. As I have said, and as hon. Gentlemen opposite have said, it was a mistake to bring in the class of mechanician who is not an apprentice himself, to drive engines and work boilers. To do that you must have men who understand how to make the engines, and the boiler, or else you will have accidents. I have always been strongly in favour of stokers receiving their fair share of promotion and of appointment, but there is plenty of work for mechanicians to do besides doing artificers' work, which should be done by trained artificers who have been so from boyhood. I am very anxious to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say on a grievance which is not in any way a party matter, and which all people connected with the dockyard, no matter what their politics, recognise as a grievance, principally owing to the fact that the dockyard men, notwithstanding their privileges, have not as fair a position as the men outside.

Dr. MACNAMARA

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) raised the question, the discussion of which he has often initiated, and, if I may say so, with great ability, namely, that of the cost of naval cadets' training. The Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth expresses his judgment that the system of common entry for naval officers has failed. That I entirely deny at once; it has not failed. My hon. Friend, in his comment as to the cost, said a great deal which is worthy of serious consideration. There is no doubt that the cost limits the area of selection, and there is no doubt that it tends probably to keep some suitable lads out of the Navy, but the Noble Lord must not upon that make the general statement that the whole scheme has failed. It has not. The scheme stands foursquare to-day.

Lord C. BERESFORD

It is entirely altered.

Dr. MACNAMARA

The Noble Lord is referring to a much broader proposition, but on the point of cost we have before us the Report of the Custance Committee, which suggested that we might meet this question of the difficulty of cost by a system of bursaries. Whether that is the best way to proceed or whether a better way would be a general lowering of the fee charged, I will not now commit myself to the one or the other, but I can give my hon. Friend this assurance, that the point he raised has engaged, and is engaging, our close consideration. As regards the E.R.A., that is an old controversy between the hon. Member and myself, and he will absolve me from any desire to be discourteous if I do not further pursue the matter at this juncture, because there is another matter to which I should like to refer more fully.

In the distribution of the Admiralty business it is my duty to deal with general labour questions and hearing of petitions. In pursuance of this duty I have visited each yard and heard the workmen's petitions. My reports have been considered, and they have received the approval of the Board of Admiralty and of the First Lord of the Admiralty. I take the opportunity afforded by the questions put to me yesterday and to-day to make some announcement on the matter. In the first place, I think it necessary to remove one or two misconceptions. There has been a good deal of criticism, in the House and out of it, of alleged delay in replying to the petitions What are the facts? We undertake to make a yearly survey or review and to give yearly decisions. Last year we issued our decisions on the 22nd July. This year the principal decisions, that is, regarding wages, will be issued to-morrow, the 9th May. Therefore we are two months better than our word. The talk of delay has arisen in this way. Directly the decisions of one year are issued, we immediately ask for petitions for the next. Last year, as I have stated, we issued our replies on the 22nd July, and in August and September we straightway asked for new petitions. I am replying to those to a large extent to-day. It is quite true that eight months have elapsed since the petitions were received. Hence this charge of delay, although the replies are well within the scheme of annual revision. I think myself that we should probably escape this charge if we did not ask for new petitions quite so hot-foot upon the issue of the annual decisions.

It is quite fashionable, in the House and outside, to say that practically every petition is not acceded to. That is not exactly true or just. Since 1906 down to last year our concessions on the then numbers added to our wages sheet a charge of £100,000 a year. Last year the concessions added a further £42,000 a year on the then numbers. Let me shortly state the principal concessions of those seven years. In 1906 we gave the labourers an increase of 1s. a week, the skilled labourers an increase of 1s. a week, the shipwrights an increase of 1s. a week. In 1908 we gave the joiners an increase of 1s. a week. In 1909 we gave the riggers an increase of 1s. a week. Last year we gave the labourers another 1s. a week, and we increased the minimum for skilled labour by 1s. These are the principal items; there were many minor concessions. Therefore, it is not precisely true to say that the revision is a farce, and that all the petitions are not acceded to. In recent months, since the issue of the last decisions, the representations of certain classes of workmen in favour of increased wages have been very insistent. They point out—and it is quite true—that in the shipbuilding and engineering trades outside there have been recent increases—in some cases, indeed, of a substantial character. Those have been made possible by splendid prosperity in the industries concerned, which prosperity we may well hope will long continue. The weekly wages outside therefore have, as a result of those increases and that prosperity, in certain cases run past the weekly rates in the dockyards. I admit that at once. Hence these insistent demands. But I must point out—it is my duty to point out—when you have compared the weekly rate in the dockyards and the weekly rate for corresponding work outside, you have not completed the investigation. I would further point out—I do not know that I had better use the word "privileges" in this connection—that there are considerations that may fairly be stated. There is the forty-eight hours' week, which is by no means universal outside. There is the chance of establishment, with security of tenure and pension. About one in four of the skilled mechanics have a chance of being established. Once they are established they enter a branch of the Civil Service, with an ultimate pension, a pension which I admit at once they have themselves largely to contribute to. Take the case of the hired, the non-established, man. I am perfectly safe in saying that 75 per cent. of the hired men are far surer of continuous employment than the men outside. In respect to the hired man, the non-established man, it is quite true a margin stands off, may be called upon to stand off from time to time according to shipbuilding and repairing necessities. But the point that I want to make—and I think it is quite a fair one—is that a wave of industrial depression, which is so disastrous, as my hon. Friends know, to the shipbuilding and engineering industries outside, does not necessarily affect the Royal dockyards at all. Good times or bad times, the building, repairing, and refitting of His Majesty's ships goes on. It will continue to go on unless by agreement the Powers alter their policy.

Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN

What will happen then?

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE

What about the naval holiday?

Dr. MACNAMARA

Unless by agreement the Powers alter their policy. In 1908 23.2 per cent. of the shipbuilding industry employés outside were unemployed. In 1909 the mean average was 22.1 per cent. The dockyard is immune from fluctuations of so sweeping a character as these figures represent. The outside man is now no doubt getting a higher weekly wage than the dockyard shipwright—I admit that. But take the five years, 1908–9–10–11–12, and add up the total aggregate wages of the shipwrights—I am speaking of the dock- yards—and I should not be very much surprised to find that the aggregate had not fallen, for the men have most likely been continuously employed all those five years—I say I should be surprised to find that a man's aggregate earnings had fallen very much below the same class of man who to-day is getting a larger weekly wage than the dockyard employé.

Lord C. BERESFORD

Not in the last five years?

Dr. MACNAMARA

Yes, I have given the last five years. I said that in 1909 the mean of unemployment was 22.1—nearly one in four—and in 1908 it was 23.2 of unemployment among outside men. My point is a simple one: that although these men outside may be getting a better weekly wage now, yet if you added up the aggregate earnings of my dockyard shipwrights, they would compare favourably with the men outside the dockyard, and I should be very much surprised to find that in the five years' earnings the dockyard men were very much below.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE

Not better than men in continuous employment outside.

Dr. MACNAMARA

I pointed out that the fluctuations in industries do not sweep down upon the dockyards as they do outside You cannot leave continuity of employment out of the question; it is important, and must be borne in mind. Then take the non-established men, although they do not get pensions or security of tenure, yet if they have served seven years, and that then we have not got any work for them, they get a gratuity of one week's pay for every year of service. If a man has done fifteen years, and that for any cause, save misconduct or his own request, he is put off, he gets a gratuity of one week's pay for every year, and in our Estimates for 1913–14 we expect to dispense £13,500 in gratuities to hired non-established men who do not get a pension, and in the tea years, from 1902 to 1912, we have paid gratuities to hired men amounting to £169,864. We have taken these things into due consideration. We have given them due weight, but we have not by any means appraised them too highly. But notwithstanding these things, we think we are bound to meet the men's request, if not entirely, at least in a substantial degree, and therefore I have pleasure in announcing the following advances of wages: The shipwrights, non-established, will be raised from 36s. to 38s. per week for hired men; and from 34s. 6d. to 36s. for established men, the difference between the hired and the established rates being met by superannuation in the latter case. The annual cost of this advance on present numbers for the shipwrights will be £35,750 a year. In the engineering trades, that is fitters, boiler makers, coppersmiths, founders, and pattern makers, the minimum rate will be raised from 36s. to 38s. for hired men.

Lord C. BERESFORD

Are the plumbers in that?

Dr. MACNAMARA

No. I will come to them. The increase for established men would be from 34s. 6d. to 36s., the difference between hired and established men being met again by superannuation for the established men in this as in the other case. The maximum will still remain at 40s. for hired men with a few special rates beyond as at the present time. The total annual cost of the concessions to the engineering trade will be about £25,000 a year. Unskilled labourers we propose to raise the rate from 22s. to 23s., and the rate at Haulbowline from 21s. to 22s. The total cost of the increases towards unskilled labour will be about £14,000 per year. [An HON. MEMBER: "Does that include the works department?"] It will include all the labourers on the minimum rate in the works department as elsewhere. For skilled labourers the minimum is 23s. now. That minimum will be treated as a probationary rate, and when a man has been upon it at the 1st of June for one year or more he will at once proceed to 24s. Haulbowline will go up from 22s. to 23s. The ordinary maximum of 28s. ordinary rate, and the special maximum of 31s. will remain the same. The cost of that will be about £19,000 a year.

Lord C. BERESFORD

I thought they had from 23s. 6d. to 24s.

Dr. MACNAMARA

Not in my time. Twenty-three shillings was the minimum rate last year, it is still so, but it is to be a probationary rate and any man who has been at that rate for one year will go on to the next scale. Joiners: hired men will be increased from 34s. 6d. to 36s., and men on the establishment from 33s. to 34s. 6d. Plumbers and braziers will be raised 1s. 6d. the same as the joiners. Sailmakers will get 1s. 6d. of a rise, making 31s. to 32s. 6d. for hired men, and 29s. 6d. to 31s. established men. Riggers will get 1s. rise, from 29s. 6d. to 30s. 6d. hired men, and 28s to 29s., established. Smiths, we propose to increase the numbers at 38s. hired men and 36s. established. The hired messengers will get an increase of 1s. on their minimum rate. The ropemakers will get 1s. on the ordinary maximum and 1s. on the special maximum. The electrical station staffs will get the following increases:—Supervisors, B. class, scale raised by 3s. 6d. a week; mechanic drivers and dynamo attendants, minimum raised by 2s. 4d. a week; assistant drivers and dynamo attendants, scale raised by 1s. 2d. a week; switchboard attendants, scale raised by 1s. 2d. a week; leading stokers, scale raised by 1s. 2d. a week; stokers, scale raised by 1s. 2d. a week. These concessions will take effect as from the 1st June. Last year the rises we gave dated from the 1st August, so that at any rate we have given two sets of rises in the course of ten months. I make that remark in reference to the suggestions that there has been delay. The cost for the rest of the current financial year of the rises I am now announcing will be £83,900. On present numbers, for future years, a full year's operation, the cost of these concessions, which I may say have been assented to with the greatest readiness by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will be £103,910 per year. When these concessions are in full operation they will increase our wage sheet—together with those already conceded since 1906—on present numbers by no smaller an amount than £250,000 a year. It is possible we may be able to meet the extra £83,900 for 1913–14 out of the aggregate of Navy Votes, but, if we cannot, we must come for a Supplementary Estimate. I have stated our proposals in detail, but I dare say many hon. Members will desire to ask me questions, and I will put into the hands of any hon. Member who wishes it a copy of the Order, which will state all these details. There are a number of matters outstanding in the annual petitions. There is the question of overtime, and several matters of an administrative character. These increases impose a heavy additional annual charge upon the Exchequer, a charge of nearly £104,000 a year when they are in full operation. I say that they are reasonable, that they are just, and that they are well merited. I have admitted that they do not meet in full all the demands of the men, but, after the most painstaking consideration, we say that they represent what we think may fairly be conceded, and I submit that they constitute an adequate reply to the petitions that have been submitted to us.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn until Tuesday, the 27th May," put accordingly, and agreed to. Adjourned at Seven minutes before Seven o'clock, till Tuesday, 27th May.