§ 95 and 96. Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (1) whether he is aware of the lack of promotion in the Navy to warrant electrician; that the Admiralty have ordered that officers serving in the depot ships "Ambrose" and "Lucia" should be relieved without reliefs being sent; that this course leaves important appointments vacant which should only be filled by officers of the Electrical Branch; will he see that sufficient promotions are made to enable all appointments to be filled and the necessary reliefs to be arranged without creating the vacancies mentioned;
(2) whether he is aware that during the past 18 months a number of electricians have retired from active service and taken pensions and that no promotions in respect of these retirements have been made: and will he see that for every retirement a promotion is made to fill the vacancy either immediately or periodically?
§ Mr. AMERYThe Admiralty are fully aware of the lack of promotion in the Electrician Branch, which is due to the present authorised establishment being considerably overborne. This position is not peculiar to any one branch. The two officers of the Electrician Branch serving in His Majesty's ships "Ambrose" and "Lucia" were withdrawn as the complement of these vessels does not provide for warrant electricians being borne; these withdrawals do not cause vacancies, and the last two parts of the 860 first question do not, therefore, arise. As regards Question No. 96, during the last 18 months four retirements of officers of the Electrician Branch have taken place, but as the numbers now borne are considerably in excess of the authorised establishment, it is not possible to make any promotions in the vacancies. The whole question of the establishment of warrant officers to be maintained will be further considered shortly.
§ 97. Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that there is a difference of 1s. and 2s. a day, according to class, in the pay of electrical artificer and engine-room artificer; will be consider the possibility of issuing a proficiency certificate showing ability to take responsibility to be granted on being rated electrical artificer third class and an allowance of 1s. per day to all men in possession of this certificate; and will he consider an additional allowance of 1s. a day in respect of certificate awarded on passing for chief electrical artificer, showing ability to take charge of and instruct in all electrical instruments and machinery, this allowance not to be paid until actually advanced to acting chief artificer, second class?
§ Mr. AMERYThe substantive pay of these two branches is the same, and the reference is presumably to the engine-room artificers' watchkeeping and charge allowances. The question raised by my hon. Friend has been considered on several occasions, and the views of the Admiralty are expressed in the reply to Class Request 48 at the Welfare Committee, 1919–20. As this reply is somewhat long, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKECan the hon. Gentleman give any promise of a reconsideration of that reply?
§ The request and reply are as follow:
§ 48. Electrical artificers to have same allowance as engine-room artificers.
§ This question, which has been considered on previous occasions, has been again reviewed, but the Admiralty are of opinion that no sufficient arguments have been advanced for the change proposed. The engine-room artificer has to show 861 himself capable of using his knowledge in exercising distinct responsibility in taking charge of moving machinery without the direct supervision of a superior officer, whereas the electrical artificer, except in rare cases, does his work, which is entirely manual, under the direction of an officer. The chief engine-room artificer's allowance is given to him for having proved himself capable of taking complete charge of propelling machinery of a small ship where no engineer officer or warrant officer is borne. There is no parallel in the case of a chief electrical artificer.