NAVY ESTIMATES, 1919–20. (Hansard, 11 December 1919)

HC Deb 11 December 1919 vol 122 cc1743-58 1743

1. "That a sum, not exceeding £8,077,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Wages, etc., to Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, Royal Marines, Women's Royal Naval Service, and Mercantile Officers and Men, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £,25,816,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.
2. That a sum, not exceeding £2,385,000, 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, 1920, in addition to a sum of £7,623,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.
3. That a sum, not exceeding £150,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Medical Services, including the cost of Medical Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £479,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.
4. That a stun, not exceeding £118,004, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civilians employed on Fleet Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £378,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.
5. That a sum, not exceeding £99,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Educational Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £318,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.
6. That a sum, not exceeding £110,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Scientific Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £353,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.
7. That a sum, not exceeding £109,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Fleet Reserve, and the Royal Naval Volunteers, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, 1744 in addition to a sum of £350,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.
8. That a sum, not exceeding £2,862,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Personnel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., at Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to the sum of £9,146,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.
9. That a sum, not exceeding £2,546,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Materiel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., at Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to the sum of £8,139,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.
10. That a sum, not exceeding £9,975,400, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Contract Work for Shipbuilding, Repairs, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £31,880,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.
11. That a sum, not exceeding £3,763,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Naval Armaments and Aviation, which will coins in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £12,027,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.
12. That a sum, not exceeding £1,336,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Purchase of Sites, Grants in Aid, and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £4,331,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.
13. That a sum, not exceeding £1,455,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of various Miscellaneous Effective Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, in addition to a sum of £4,601,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.
14. That a sum, not exceeding £453,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £1,447,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.
15. That a sum, not exceeding £308,600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Half Pay and Retired Pay, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £988,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.
16. That a sum, not exceeding £3,607,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £11,527,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.
17. That a sum, not exceeding £171,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances, and Gratuities, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £547,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally."

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE
Under this Vote His Majesty's ship "Repulse" is shown as being under repair at a cost of £739,000. This sum approximates to half the original cost of the vessel, and I think the House is entitled to some explanation with regard to this very heavy expenditure.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I should like to reinforce what my hon. and gallant Friend has said with regard to His Majesty's ship "Repulse." It is most essential we should have some details of this. I see the greater part of this money, according to the Estimate, is to be spent on armour. Above the item for the "Repulse" appears the name of the "Renown," and an estimate is given there for armour for the same amount as for the "Repulse." It seems very extraordinary that these two ships, laid down in 1915, according to a design by Lord Fisher, of great speed and great gun power, are now to have these large sums spent on them for armour after being purposely built with light armour to carry out the ideas of that great master of strategy. I think it is extraordinary that these sums of £700,000 each should be spent in tinkering up each of these vessels, and I hope their Lordships will think twice before they carry on this rather extraordinary policy. In the Debate last night I was unable to obtain information, although I had given notice that I intended to ask for it—but, by a mistake, it was not forthcoming—with regard to the case of the cruiser "Antrim," an obsolescent armoured cruiser built in-1902 and quite useless for 1746 modern fleet work. She is having a sum of over £161,000 spent on her for the purpose of making her into a signal vessel. I think a more modern ship should have been utilised for the work, and the money spent on her, so that she could be used in war-time, which the "Antrim" will never be. Then there is the case of the ancient protected cruiser "High-flyer," which was laid down in 1897, has a speed of only seventeen knots, and is fitted with old-fashioned Scottish boilers. She is having a sum of £95,000 spent on her. Hon. Members seem rather surprised at these details, but they are responsible for the expenditure of this money. The Scottish boilers serve their purpose. They have been the most successful boilers in the world, but under modern conditions with oil-driven engines and turbines, they are like the ancient ark and have passed their sphere of utility for naval purposes. Finally, there is a sum of £850,000 for the purchase of vessels.

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara)
That is on the next Vote.

§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY
Then perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will answer the question I have put.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I will do so at once. I did know that the hon. and gallant Member desired to raise the case of the "Highflyer" in yesterdays Debate, and I had a note upon it, but in the endeavour to condense as much as I could a reply which had to cover a Debate lasting between seven and eight hours, I am afraid I condensed that note out of existence altogether. I apologise for having done so. The "Highflyer" was selected as the flagship of the Commander-in-Chief, East Indies, because the modern light cruisers designed and built for the late War were unsuitable for the purposes of a flagship, and the accommodation which the Commander-in-Chief at that station would require. The "Highflyer" had previously been used on that station, as the hon. and gallant Member knows, as the flagship, and had proved quite satisfactory. She was selected after very careful consideration indeed of all the facts of the case. As regards the figures on this Vote and elsewhere, I need not remind my hon. and gallant Friend that when he speaks of £95,000, which is the figure in the Estimates for the "Highflyer," you have to 1747 divide that at least by two and more than two, to get back to the figure we should have paid under the Estimates which were presented in 1913–14. That is owing to the increased cost of labour and material.

§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY
Had not a class of vessels been built especially to serve as flagships on foreign stations, with a much greater fighting power?

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I cannot answer that, but the modern light cruiser is not suitable for the service. Having gone carefully into all the facts, the Board came to the conclusion that she was the vessel most suitable for the service. In order to arrive at a fair comparison between the figures now and those of 1913–14, you have to multiply the cost of alterations, repairs, and refits by more than two. As to the "Antrim," I explained yesterday that she was going to be fitted as a signal ship. She is being fitted as a signal and wireless telegraphy experimental seagoing ship. I have now given her precise function in full. She was completed in 1905. She is not expected to fight. She was specially selected for this particular purpose as being the most suitable vessel. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that the only alterations contemplated are those necessary to fit her for her new duties, which obviously are considered very important. As to the "Repulse," she was laid down in 1915 and completed in 1916. The expenditure upon her is for the purpose of increasing her protection against gunfire and against torpedo attack. She was originally specially designed—no one knows this better than the hon. and gallant Member—for high speed. The experience of the War has shown the Naval Staff that in her case it is desirable to increase her protection against gunfire and torpedo attack, and for that purpose this sum of money is required. As to the "Renown," she was laid down in 1915 and completed in 1916. She is the sister ship to the "Repulse." The alterations carried out in the case of the "Repulse" have not been done in the case of the "Renown," but provision has been made in the Estimates for the taking in hand and progressing with her protective work. I do not think any other ship was mentioned.
Question put, and agreed to.
Tenth Resolution read a second time.
1748 Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY
This Vote includes £835,000 for the purchase of vessels. In view of the great strength of the Navy when Peace came, it seems extraordinary that this sum should be expended on this purpose. Does it include the purchase of the minelayer "Princess Margaret," the ex-Canadian Pacific Railway liner? If so, it throws an extraordinary light on the policy pursued during the last eighteen months. She is an enormous ship. No one seeing her on the sea could mistake her. For that reason alone she is unsuitable as a minelayer. She has been on hire agreement during the whole of the War at very high cost; indeed I am told that she has been paid for twice over. Now this rather unsuitable ship has been purchased for something like £400,000. It shows an extraordinary extravagance, to put it mildly, to purchase this ship for this service, in view of her many defects and the high cost she is hound to incur. We are entitled to some explanation of this item of £835,000 for purchases.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
The First Lord yesterday stated that this was for Fleet auxiliaries, and that is broadly true. The vessels which are here covered are two auxiliaries. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked me if the name of a particular ship was included. I cannot answer that offhand. Perhaps he will put a question on the Paper. There are two auxiliaries, both of which have been employed on their respective services during the War. Special service vessels are included in this amount, and a ship specially fitted for experimental work. The remainder represents some prize ships, the value of which is shown, in order to credit the Prize Fund with their value.
Question put, and agreed to.
Eleventh Resolution read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

§ Rear-Admiral ADAIR
I should like to know what is being done with the two airships R 34 and R 33, whose property they are, and to what use they are now being put.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I presume they have been transferred to the-Air Ministry.
1749 As to the remainder of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question, I should recommend him to address an inquiry in that quarter.

§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY
Are we not finding the money for this, and are we not entitled to raise the point?

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
There is some money in Vote 9 for construction purposes, there is some money in Vote 10 for land and sheds, and there is some money in Vote 12 for the staff at the Office, but all that referred to the earlier part of the year and was supplied for the Service. They have now been transferred. If I am asked, to what use the transferred property is now being put, I cannot answer the question.
Question put, and agreed to.
Twelfth Resolution read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House cloth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

§ Commander Viscount CURZON
There is an item of £8,550 in. respect of Osborne College, and I should like some information as to what it means. There is another large item for Invergordon. I should like an assurance that the dockyard at Invergordon is nearly being wound up at the earliest possible moment. A good deal of money is still being spent on the new pier at Dalmore. I should like to know that it is really necessary for peace-time purposes as well as for wartime.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
The expenditure at Osborne is immediately necessary in order to secure the comfort of the cadets and to make it satisfactory from the health point of view. That does not mean that the future policy at Osborne has been determined. The whole matter is under reconsideration. Whatever we do at Osborne in the future, we were bound immediately, on the best advice we could get, to spend the money. Invergordon is being closed up, We do not propose to retain this yard for peace-time purposes. I cannot say how the new pier stands. I imagine we are endeavouring to dispose of it for commercial purposes, but Invergordon as a naval base will be closed down.
Question put, and agreed to.
Thirteenth Resolution agreed to.
Fourteenth Resolution read a second time.
1750 Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth, agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

§ Rear-Admiral ADAIR
With regard to, the remuneration of the Board of Admiralty, I am not at all satisfied with their attitude on the question of the payment of the junior officers in the Service, lieutenants in particular. I think they are not paying sufficient attention to that having regard to the great increase which has been made in the corresponding ranks in the Army.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley)
This is a matter which should have been raised on Vote 1. On the Report stage of a Vote we are confined strictly to the matter contained in each Vote. There is no general discussion. On this Vote anything to do with tine staffing of the Admiralty is in order, but not the general pay of the Service.

§ Rear-Admiral ADAIR
I wish to draw the attention of the Admiralty most seriously to the very grave responsibility that lies upon them in connection with, seeing that our Air Service associated with the Navy is maintained efficiently, which it is not at present.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
Those who have been on the Admiralty staff will welcome the small item in the, brochure to the effect that it is intended apparently to keep on the Training and Staff Duties Division of the Admiralty. This Department, the idea of which is borrowed from the War Office, will be, if it is properly run and organised and given a chance, of incalculable benefit to the efficiency of the whole Service. It will have the whole of the training which will be co-ordinated with the general staff work and it will be a part of the Staff, and it ought to be divorced entirely from the domain of the Second Sea Lord's activities with personnel apart from training. I beg my right hon. Friend to let me have an assurance that the matter is being carefully considered at the Admiralty. If the Staff is to be efficient in the future the appointments of Staff officers to particular Staff posts must be in the hands of the Training and Staff Duties Division, and if the appointment of Staff officers and officers training in staff duties is held and exercised by the Second Sea Lord, that division, from which we progressives in the Navy hope so much, the 1751 Training and Staff Duties Division, will be much hampered, and its usefulness will not be nearly so great as if it were run on Army lines. I do not want to press my right hon. Friend, but if he could give me an assurance that the training staff is a live power and that it has full power over the appointment of Staff officers, the Navy would be relieved.

§ Viscount CURZON
I should like to reinforce what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) in regard to the Naval Staff. In the Plan Division, which is one of the most important branches of the Naval Staff, there is at present one director, two assistant directors, and one staff clerk. Three officers and a clerk to constitute the brains of the Plan Division of the Admiralty, one of the most important divisions. I do earnestly press the right hon. Gentleman for a better statement than we have had up to now as to the policy of the Admiralty towards the Naval Staff. I should like to be certain that the thinking Department of the Admiralty is not being cut down too much under the influence of the very natural and laudable desire for economy. By all means economise, providing you economise in the right way, but you must have a thinking Department available which will afford you the opportunity, should it ever unfortunately become necessary again, to rapidly expand your naval organisation, to keep closely in touch with all the details relating to modern war. I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give an assurance on the point that the Staff Division of the Admiralty is not being unduly cut down in response to pressure on the part of the economists.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE
Last night the First Lord, in introducing the Estimates, referred to the need for co-ordination between the various Services. I think we are entitled to a little more enlightenment as to what policy he intends to adopt before we pass this Estimate for the Naval Staff. I agree with both the hon. and gallant Gentlemen who have just spoken that the planning section and the thinking department of the Admiralty must not be in any way restricted and cut down. We saw a very good example of staff work last night. After thirteen months of peace the First Lord comes to the House and says that he is unable to 1752 state a policy. During that time the allied staffs have been discussing in Paris the future of naval policy, and it seems to me a remarkable thing that after thirteen months deliberation they have not arrived at any decision. The point upon which I should like to be enlightened relates to the co-ordination of the three Services, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force. Is it intended to revive the Committee of Imperial Defence, without any constitutional powers, and with all the farce that existed before the War? It will be remembered what used to happen at the Committee of Imperial Defence. The heads of Departments attended the meetings of the Committee, and they were probably agreed on policy, but they went back to their respective Departments of the Admiralty and the War Office, and in their different capacities as members of the Admiralty Board or the War Office, they would reverse decisions which had been arrived at at the Committee of Imperial Defence. If a central body, whether it is the Committee of Imperial Defence or a Ministry of Defence is set up, it must have executive power, and must be under a Minister responsible for defence. We have seen failures resulting from this policy in numerous operations throughout the War. If we had had a staff capable of coordinating the three Services, a great many of the disasters and calamities which occurred during the War might have turned out to be most brilliant achievements, such as the Dardanelles operations, and operations in the North Sea.

§ Mr. ACLAND
I wish to refer to the subject I raised last night and on which I received an announcement to-day from the Leader of the House, and that is the financial organisation of the Admiralty. It appeared from the answer the First Lord gave to me yesterday and the answer I got from the Leader of the House to-day that the matter has only just been taken up, although the Report of the Public Accounts Committee was rendered in July. I am sure that neither the Admiralty nor other public Departments wish to ignore the strong recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee. I do not know of whom the Public Accounts Committee may consist next Session, but the setting up of a new Public Accounts Committee next Session is not many months off, and it would be a pity 1753 if it had to be reported to the Public Accounts Committee then that no progress had been made in investigating this very difficult and extremely important matter. If the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty would consult the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is a member of the Public Accounts Committee, he would realise that the matter is important. I can only ask for the assurance now that so far as my right hon. Friend at the Admiralty is concerned, he will do all he can after these five months' delay to see that the matter is very seriously gone into.

§ Major GLYN
As regards the Department of the Director of Transport there is a foot note which says that the whole staff of this Department is loaned to the Ministry of Shipping. If that is the case, I understand that officers serving in the Ministry of Shipping are in receipt of hgher pay than they previously received in serving the Admiralty, and I should be glad to know whether when these officers return to the Admiralty they will be in receipt of their present rate of pay, or will come down to their previous rates of pay. All Army officers serving in the Dardanelles were very much aware that there is great need for a complete revision of the handbook on combined operations. They knew of the reluctance of fighting officers of the Navy to take on work dealing with the Mercantile Marine. Their training is absolutely different from anything which has to do with the Mercantile Marine. Now at the Ministry of Shipping there are officers who have been loaned from the Admiralty Transport branch who have great experience of war and when the time comes to transfer them, and these officers and the personnel of the staff go back to the Admiralty, if their experience of the War and the lessons taught by the War which cost, us so much life and wealth, are not taken into account, we shall have forfeited lessons which test us very dearly, especially in Gallipoli. Perhaps we might have a little information as to what is to be the future of the Transport Branch. I trust after what has been said as regards the importance of a joint General Staff that before any final decision is taken in regard to the future of the Transport Service, it may be considered whether or not some fresh arrangement in regard to transport might be considered, so as to include officers of experience in the Mercantile Marine, who 1754 have rendered very great service to the Army and the Navy in the transport of troops during the War.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
My hon. and gallant Friend (Sir J. Davidson) has raised a very important question of co-operation between the heads of the three fighting Staffs. The hon. and gallant Member for Clackmannan (Major Glyn) especially emphasised the transport aspect of such cooperation. I confess frankly that I cannot dogmatise on these matters with anything in the nature of a weighty opinion. I have been at the Admiralty twelve years, but I am conscious that I am not a sailor. I am a civilian, and I hesitate to dogmatise about these matters or to speak at all confidently about them. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) has referred to the thinking Department being cut down. He need have no apprehension upon that point. We have as the Chief of the Staff Admiral of the Fleet Earl Beattie, fresh from the sea, and he has around him as his colleagues men who have all come like him straight from the sea, with very large naval experience, so that my hon. and gallant Friend can have a further reassurance that the thinking Department is not being cut down. With regard to all these matters, all comments which hon. Members of the House are good enough to give are very carefully tabulated after all these Debates, and they are referred to the competent authorities responsible, who will examine them and consider them, and, where necessary, report the matter for consideration to then Board of Admiralty; and I will take care, though I do not feel that I can deal with these matters with such confidence as appears to be possible to others, that they shall all be represented.

§ Major-General Sir J. DAVIDSON
There is the question of the full efficiency which depends on a proper effective co-ordination between the three forces responsible for defence. That is the whole question and a most important question.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
That was heartily represented yesterday, and again to-night with no less stress, and it shall be put before those who are responsible for this great Service.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE
Are we to assume that nothing has been done so far?

1755

§ 10.0 P.M.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
My hon. and gallant Friend heard what the First Lord of the Admiralty said yesterday in reply. I cannot go beyond that. As regards the Transport Department, the work is steadily coming back to us. I am not aware that, during the time that the offices have been seconded, if that is the term, to the Shipping Controller, they have been more favourably treated from the point of view of emoluments. I cannot give any undertaking as to what would be the position when they return to us, but it will have to be carefully considered. My right hon. Friend referred to the second report of the Public Accounts Committee. It was a report, as regards the paragraph which he had in mind, which deals with the matter of controlling finance, and after describing the War Office organisation it went on to says: Your Committee do not hesitate to say that their actual experience of the accounts of the Departments amply confirms the natural expectations that the War Office system would show the better results in practice. I make no comment on that. It goes on: The strength and efficiency of that system lie essentially in the fact that one and the same man handles the actual expenditure in the account and gives financial advice. His knowledge of actual expenditure gives his advice a great part of its value, and the fact that he and his subordinates in touch with the military branches share the discussions on policy as affecting finance and know the real intention enables them to see that the intention in fact is carried out. That is the matter to which our attention is called by the Public Accounts Committee. It goes on: At the Admiralty on the other hand there is no such vital touch under the hands of one person and his staff between finance and administration. The Accountant-General's staff make an estimate of any financial proposal at its inception but then lose touch with it. The Assistant Secretary for Financial Duties hears of it at a later stage only if and when it is referred to him by the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary. Further, they state, with regard to the general system of financial control, your Committee cannot but view with grave apprehension the diminutions of the powers of the Accounting Officer of the Navy, and they are of opinion that there should be an independent inquiry into the whole system of internal financial control at the Admiralty. As far as I am concerned we will be only too glad to have the two methods, the War Office method, with civilian touch on these points, as against the Admiralty method, examined to see—after all the proof of the pudding is in the eating—which is the 1756 better system. I do not know what particular form of inquiry the Public Accounts Committee wishes to propose, but so far as I am concerned and the Board of Admiralty are concerned, we will lend every assistance possible to any effort to find out the advantages and disadvantages of the two systems.
Question put, and agreed to.
Fifteenth Resolution agreed to.
Sixteenth Resolution read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

§ Viscount CURZON
I would like, if I may, to press once again on the Admiralty the position of the old Royal Pensioner. As the House will remember, the question of naval pensions was dealt with in the Jerram Report. Under the Jerram Report the pensioners who did not serve during the War, the old pensioners, were left out, and no increase whatever was made in their pensions. The reason given by the Government is that this is part of a large question which cannot be dealt with alone, so far as the Navy is concerned, but must he dealt with by all the Services—Navy, Army, Air Force, Civil Service, and so on. I would like to press upon the right hon. Gentleman the case of some of these old Royal Pensioners, and to give particulars of a case I have here. It is that of a man who was a seaman in the Royal Navy and who lost both arms by an accident on a cruiser in Rio Harbour in 1879. He received a pension on the injury scale of 2s. 0½d. a day from naval funds, supplemented by a Greenwich Hospital special pension of 5½d. a day; making in all £45 12s. a year, or 17s. 6d. a week. This is the case of a man who is totally unable to help himself. When be reaches the age of sixty-five he will get an increase which will bring his pension to £50 7s. a year. It is obvious that a man in a position like this cannot possibly maintain himself on 17s. 6d. a week. If there is anything I can say on behalf of the old pensioners. I hope that it will be borne in mind by the Admiralty and that, if possible, they will make representations to the Treasury upon the point.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I find it a very ungracious duty not to be able to say at once that I will do what the hon. and gallant Member suggests. I can say that I sympathise, but that will not help much—not 1757 at all, as a matter of fact. My hon. and gallant Friend knows that recommendation No. 51 of the Jerram Committee was that the revised scale of pensions should apply to all pensioners now on rolls, in consideration of the increased cost of living and the higher standard of comfort normally aimed at. He asks, why do we not carry that recommendation out? It would cover all the old pensioners over fifty-five. The Government decision was that the revised scale would apply, as from 1st April, 1919, to all future pensioners, all pensioners now serving, and all who have served during the War, including those serving in a civilian capacity under the Government who, although under 55 years of age and therefore liable to service during hostilities, were retained in their civilian employment, and that the revised scale will not apply to other pensioners—that is to say, to the old pensioners over 55 on whose behalf my hon. and gallant Friend has appealed. That is the Government decision. I can only add this fact, that we have on our rolls approximately 37,000 life pensioners, and 25,000 of them come under the Government decision. That is, they get the new basic rate increase. That was the effect of the Jerram decision. Those who are not eligible are approximately 1,200. I am sorry I cannot carry the matter beyond the decision given; I have no authority to do so. My hon. and gallant Friend was quite right in saying that the main reason was the fact that we could not legislate for the Naval Service alone in a matter of this sort. That is the difficulty. You would have to be ready to revise the whole roll of pensioners in all directions.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I know the right hon. Gentleman is not personally responsible for the decision, but his statement is very disappointing, and he knows it is disappointing. It simply points the moral of the great evil of wasting money on obsolete ships and spending money on the armouring of ships that were never meant to be armoured, and on other extravagance to which attention has been drawn in the Committee.

§ Sir J. DAVIDSON
I think it is a very great mistake to hold a very strong opinion and not to express it. There is no one in this House who is more convinced than I am of the necessity for economy and for making our expenditure balance our revenue at the earliest possible moment. At the same time, I think it is 1758 grossly unfair that these pre-war pensioners should not get an increase commensurate with the existing increase in the scale of pensions. It is extremely hard, because you have got to deal here with a class of person over 55 who are very likely incapable of doing any work. The same applies to the Army and the Police and The Civil Service. I have asked what it all amounts to, but I cannot get a reply. I think it is a matter that the House must be told something about, because on the face of it it is grossly unfair.
Question put, and agreed to.
Seventeenth Resolution agreed to.