HC Deb 08 March 1922 vol 151 cc1252-3
20. Mr. R. YOUNG

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he can now state whether the new scheme for training officers for engineering and electrical duties has yet been worked out; and whether any, and how many, engineroom artificer apprentices from the "Indus" and "Fisgard" have been sent to Keyham engineering college?

Mr. AMERY

The details of the scheme have not yet been approved, and no artificer apprentices, therefore, have so far been sent to Keyham, but when the scheme comes into operation, probably in September next, it is the intention that a few artificer apprentices who show sufficient promise (not exceeding one or two a year) should be chosen to undergo the course of training under the same conditions as the other officers.

21. Mr. R. YOUNG

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether T. E. Davis, artificer apprentice, training establishment, has been discharged; whether he can say how long he has been an artificer apprentice; what were the reasons for his discharge; and whether such reasons were communicated to him in any way?

Mr. AMERY

As the answer to this question is a rather long one, consisting of personal details, perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the answer:

It is assumed that the inquiry relates to Frederick E. Davis. An artificer apprentice of this name was entered in August, 1918, and discharged after three and a half years' training. During his period of training Davis was warned on three separate occasions: In December, 1919, for failure to attain the required standard in school subjects; in June, 1920 (when he was also put back for six months), for failure to attain the required standard in both school and workmanship; and in June, 1921, for failure to attain the required standard in technical subjects and workmanship. In December, 1921, Davis again failed to obtain the required standard in workmanship, and was accordingly discharged. His service certificate was endorsed, "Discharged as unsuitable," and, having regard to the repeated warnings given him, the precise reasons must have been well understood.