§ 20. Sir T. BRAMSDONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that since January, 1919, 40 sickberth ratings have been invalided or otherwise disposed of, and that in place of these ratings only 21 advancements have been made, these being five sick-berth stewards advanced to chief sick-berth stewards, seven second sick-berth stewards advanced to sick-berth stewards, and nine sick-berth attendants advanced to second sick-berth stewards; of the former advancements two were dated 1st March, 1920, and the remaining advancements were dated 1st April, 1920; is he aware that there are 40 sick-berth attendants with 6½ to 7½ years' service, and a number of second sick-berth stewards with 11 to 12 years' service still awaiting promotion; that although the sick-berth staff holds out no inducements to retain the younger members in the Service, no opportunity has been given these ratings of procuring their discharge either by purchase or otherwise; and whether it is proposed to take any steps to relieve this stagnation of advancement and so give the younger members some inducement to remain in the Service, observing that the Admiralty, on the finding of the Durnford Commission of 1910, expressed the desire that sick-berth rating should attain the rating of chief sick-berth steward at the age of 32?
§ Sir J. CRAIGMy hon. Friend has not been correctly informed as regards the figures given in the first part of the question, the proportion of advancements to invalidings, etc., being much greater than is suggested. Owing to the temporary shortage of ratings in this branch it was not possible to extend to the branch the opportunity of obtaining free discharges, except in specially urgent com- 1198 passionate cases. The process of reducing the Fleet to post-War numbers has had the temporary effect of delaying advancements, but the normal wastage which has occurred since the Armistice has now nearly reduced the Sick-birth Branch to its peace numbers, and promotion will therefore shortly be resumed. Steps were taken last year to accelerate advancement in this branch. I may add that, since this answer was prepared, under my supervision, I have had a list made out which I am going to hand to the hon. Member to show where his figures are in error.
§ 21. Sir T. BRAMSDONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that, owing to the shortage of sick-berth rating in the Royal Naval Hospital, Haslar, the leave of the staff has consequently been considerably curtailed; that probationary sick-berth attendants have been acting as sick-berth attendants for the past year; that these unqualified ratings have actually been in charge of wards to allow the leave, meagre as it is, to continue; that many ratings were not able to obtain their Easter leave of 1919 until the latter end of December, 1919, and the early part of 1920; and that demobilisation leave is still owing to members of the sick-berth staff; will some action be taken to allow these ratings to enjoy the same leave privileges as other ratings of the service; and will the Medical Director-General pay a visit to the hospital to afford ratings an interview on many existing grievances?
§ Sir J. CRAIGAlthough there is still considerable additional work in all the Royal Naval Hospitals due to the War, there is no reason to believe that the sick-berth ratings at the Royal Naval Hospital, Haslar, have any substantial cause of complaint. Should they have, however, they can represent it through the usual channel in the manner prescribed by the Regulations. A report has been called for on the various points raised in the question, and any action which may be necessary will be considered when it is received.
§ Sir T. BRAMSDONWill the Medical Director-General pay a visit to the hospital in order to go personally into these grievances?
§ Sir J. CRAIGI am sure that, as a consequence of the latter part of my reply, 1199 namely, that a report has been called for, some steps equivalent to that will be taken.
§ Sir T. BRAMSDONDoes the hon. and gallant Gentleman know that the stagnation of promotion has been a cause of serious complaint among these ratings for a long time?
§ Sir J. CRAIGI think the answer to the next question will reassure the hon. Member on that point.
§ 22. Sir T. BRAMSDONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that 14 pensioner chief sick-berth stewards and one sick-berth steward, 13 of whom are serving in the Royal Naval Hospital, Haslar, and who were to have been discharged on 31st March last, after having completed an extra year's service, have again been retained for a further indefinite period owing to the shortage of sick-berth staff rating; that this is causing considerable discontent amongst activeservice ratings, who consider that if these ratings are necessary to the hospital, as the Admiralty by their actions admit they are, they should have been promoted from the active-service ratings and the staff increased to allow of this; that these retained ratings are in receipt of pay, pension, store allowance, and separation allowance; and that by promoting active-service ratings considerable economy would have been effected?
§ Sir J. CRAIGThe pensioner sick-berth ratings retained at Haslar should normally not be required, and are only retained because of an epidemic of influenza. They will be discharged as soon as it subsides. Their retention in no way affects promotion of others. If active service ratings had been advanced to meet this temporary emergency, they would be redundant when the emergency disappeared, and promotion must be dependent on the requirements of the post-War Fleet.