HC Deb 26 November 1919 vol 121 cc1770-4
19. Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Committee promised by the Prime Minister to consider the possibility of utilising the machinery and personnel of the Royal Dockyards for the building and reconditioning of merchant vessels has yet been set up; and, if so, how many meetings have been held and when the Report may be expected?

51. Sir B. FALLE

asked the Prime Minister, if, in view of the very serious position caused by the continued discharges from the Royal Dockyards, he will say what period of time will be allowed the new Committee appointed by him to report; and will he say, in view of the urgency of taking immediate steps to stop further discharges, what he proposes to do in the matter?

53. Sir T. BRAMSDON

asked the Prime Minister whether the Committee promised by him to deal with the dockyard discharges has been appointed; if so, if he will state the composition and names of such Committee, including the Chairman, and when they will set to work; and what step is being taken to stop the discharges pending the recommendations of the Committee?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long)

The Committee over which Lord Colwyn will preside will, I hope, hold its first meeting on Monday next, and sit daily until its work is accomplished.

I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the members of the Committee.

Upon the question of discharges generally, I have nothing to add to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary last Monday. We are fully alive to the gravity of the situation, and are anxious to avoid the suffering which may be caused. I hope to announce a decision at once.

The names of the Committee are as follow:

List of members of the Committee to consider the question of building merchant ships in the Royal Dockyards:

Chairman—

Two representatives of the Admiralty—

One representative from—

One representative from—

Four representatives of the Admiralty Industrial Council—

Secretary—

Sir B. FALLE

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, may I ask if he will give the men of the dockyards a further opportunity of voting on the question they have already voted upon, now that the full facts are before them?

Mr. LONG

The matter, as my hon. Friend knows, is extremely difficult and very complicated, and the suggestion he makes, that we should have another ballot of the men in the dockyards, is one that has already been under our consideration and is under consideration now, but I am very doubtful whether a fresh ballot would really help us in this emergency. What we have got to do, it seems to me, is to try and devise a plan under which the reduction of the labour in the dockyards shall be as small as possible.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE

Can he say whether, in the event of cases of great distress, the National Relief Fund will be available?

Mr. LONG

I have no right whatever to answer for the National Relief Fund. All I can say, on behalf of the Admiralty, is that while we cannot justify employment which is unnecessary, and undesirable therefore, we can, I think, perhaps anticipate the work of the next year on a three-years basis, and in that way find extra employment now. If we can we will do it. I should like to add, if I may, that the whole subject is complicated by the question of housing. We have more men in the dockyards than we actually require, but men are required in other shipbuilding yards. The transfer could be made tomorrow if there were housing accommodation in the other yards for them, but unfortunately there is not, and, therefore, we must do our best to prevent unnecessary or avoidable suffering.

Sir T. BRAMSDON

In view of the fact that the notices have been given for further discharges of men, may I ask whether, in the present uncertain state of affairs, their Lordships cannot see their way to withhold these discharges pending further inquiries?

Mr. LONG

That is one of the questions which we are inquiring into and which we are going to discuss this afternoon when I return to the Board of Admiralty, and I hope we may be able, at all events, to announce some lessening of the discharges if not their cessation altogether.

Sir T. BRAMSDON

Cannot he promise us that as far as regards the notices already served they shall be withdrawn?

Mr. LONG

No; I cannot promise that. My hon. Friend will see what it would involve. It would involve keeping men in the dockyards for whom some work would have to be invented, and that really, in the present state of the country, would be wholly unjustifiable. May I point out, in addition, that under normal conditions there are periodical discharges from the dockyards arising out of different causes —age, for one—which has always been well understood in the dockyards? At the present moment we have a large number of men, as my hon. Friend knows, in all the dockyards in excess of pre-war numbers. In these circumstances, and having regard to the work we have got to do, I think that all we can possibly be asked to undertake is what I have already undertaken, namely, to give the fullest consideration to the whole case and to do the best we can at the Admiralty to lessen any hardships that may arise.

Sir T. BRAMSDON

I quite appreciate —[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]. I think I am entitled on this very serious question to make one further inquiry. Having regard to the fact that the discharge of these men in Portsmouth means probable starvation to some of them, distress, and so on, and having regard to the fact that they were thanked by the Board of Admiralty and the Prime Minister for the splendid work they did during the War, are they not entitled to some extra consideration?

Mr. LONG

I think they are entitled to extra consideration, and that is what we are endeavouring to show. I have tried, within the limits of an answer to a question, to show the House that the circumstances are extremely difficult and complicated, and that is one of the reasons why we are engaged in discussing this question at the Board of Admiralty, and I hope in the course of another hour to be discussing it with my colleagues, and our object will be to try and meet these different cases.

20. Mr. WALLACE

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the hardship inflicted on workmen, many of whom have lost sons in the War, by their discharge on reaching the age of sixty years, he will consider the alteration of the Regulations to provide for their continued employment should they be physically fit?

Dr. MACNAMARA

It is the normal procedure, in accordance with the Dockyard Regulations, to discharge workmen on reaching the age of sixty; but each case is dealt with on its merits, and, in some cases, retention is permitted up to the age of sixty-five. My hon. Friend will, I am sure, appreciate our difficulties confronted with the fact that reductions are inevitable, and accept my assurance that we do our utmost to mitigate the hardships involved.

Mr. WALLACE

Will special consideration be given to cases of men who have reached the age of sixty before discharge, in view of the fact that many of them have lost sons in the War?

Dr. MACNAMARA

I imagine that that fact would be taken into consideration.

Forward to