PERSONNEL. (Hansard, 15 March 1928)

§ Mr. GROVES
I desire to make a few observations on this Vote. Two years ago I raised a question on behalf of the lower deck men in the Navy. I do not 2242 profess to be either a naval man or a military man, but I do profess that when people bring their grievances to me I present them to the proper quarter. Two years ago I brought before the First Lord of the Admiralty a question relating to space, to, so to speak, the housing accommodation of the men in the Navy. I happen to know that following that there have been certain changes and improvements. It may surprise the House to know how much money we have spent on the Navy since the Armistice. If hon. Members will look at page 9 of the Estimates they will see that, near enough, we have spent more than £60,000,000 a year, that is more than £600,000,000 upon the Navy since the Armistice, since we really made England fit for heroes to live in. The point I wish to put now is one I endeavoured to put before half-pasts 2243 seven, but things are so carefully arranged that back-benchers have to be very careful of the programme and watch their opportunity to get in on the wing.
On the evening last week when the House was counted out because of the interest shown by the supporters of the Government in the Debate, I brought up a question about men who are invalided from the Service and are not given a fair medical opportunity of putting their case in order that they may still remain among the numbers in Vote A. I wrote to the First Lord of the Admiralty a kind and I hope a courteous letter, and received from him a courteous if not a kind reply. In referring to this particular case I will not mention the name of the individual, because I think it is very bad to read the name of the person in the local paper. He was invalided from the Service because the medical authorities certified that he had consumption. After he had been at home for some time he was taken to the London Hospital. The medical authorities at the London Hospital do their work without pay in the sense that doctor who wrote a certificate for the man had no reason for being other than honest in his medical decision when granting that certificate. The doctors at the London Hospital certified that this ex-seaman was suffering from sandfly, and I submit to Members of the House that sandfly is not the sort of thing you get in West Ham.
I agree with the praises which have been bestowed upon the men who comprise His Majesty's Navy. They have to face perils in peace time, and they are not very particular what they have to face in war time. I think that the Committee ought to see that the men who are incapacitated under conditions which are due to war service or service abroad should be dealt with in a very generous way and not merely in a legal or Admiralty manner. The Parliamentary Secretary read a long list of Admiralty rules and regulations, and he would lead the Committee to believe that an ex-naval rating who was invalided for home would have some restitution, and some possibility of finding a friend to put his case before the Admiralty. I do not say that my hon. and gallant Friend deliberately misled us when reading from the document. In one case, I made representations 2244 that the doctor of the London Hospital should be seen by the medical authorities of the Admiralty, and I believe, if the Admiralty had taken the kindly lead I gave them, that the man I have referred to might have been still alive. This poor man died in the London Hospital, and the certificate which was given in this case by the London Hospital authorities was that the man had died from sandfly.

Dr. DAVI ES
Nothing about consumption?

§ Mr. GROVES
I do not want to make any fuss about this case, and I am prepared to say no more about it if the Parliamentary Secretary will say that he is prepared to receive representations about it. I think this case has been very badly treated, hut of course it does not prove that all cases of invalided men are treated brutally. I am putting the case on behalf of a man who died from a complaint which he contracted in the East. I know that the mother of the boy went to the Admiralty and made a claim. My point is that when a man is invalided from the Navy on account of service rendered in the East the relatives should not be put to the trouble of having to go to the Admiralty to make all these inquiries when the Admiralty, through its medical advisers, is perfectly acquainted with all the circumstances of the case.
I see that the First Lord has now returned. In order that he may not, owing to his absence, be without the information, may I tell him that what I am quoting from is a kindly letter from himself to me—more kindly than generous—dated 12th October, 1927, about a seaman. I wrote to him pleading the case of this seaman, who had been invalided from the Navy suffering from a complaint called sandfly. When I spoke last week I misquoted it, and called it "black fly." The doctors at the London Hospital said that this was a kind of disease that is contracted in the East. I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman, and he sent me the usual reply, to the effect that the case had been carefully considered by the medical authorities at the Admiralty. What I want the right hon. Gentleman to appreciate is that the case was also carefully considered by the medical authorities at the London Hospital, and may I repeat that the people 2245 at the London Hospital have no reason to give a decision against the Admiralty; they merely make a fair, impartial examination, and give a decision that would, I am sure, be fair to both sides if possible. They certified, in this case, that the man as suffering from sandfly.
If what we are so proud to call British justice is going to be given to men who may be invalided from the Navy because of their foreign service, why is not the medical evidence supplied by the local medical practitioner taken into consideration? As I said here last week, when a local panel doctor gives a certificate in the case of an invalided naval man, it is, I will not say derided, but certainly it is treated with disdain; it is not taken into consideration at all. I say that a local panel doctor who would have invalided ex-naval men under his care would be qualified to decide whether that disease was contracted at home or whether it was contracted abroad. Further, in the case of many men who have been invalided from the Navy, their physical history previous to their joining the Navy would be more likely to be known to their local panel doctor than to the Admiralty's medical advisers. I would point out that the right hon. Gentleman, to give him his due, says in his reply to me that he regrets to have to say this. He writes: In these circumstances I regret that this man is ineligible for an award of pension, and the gratuity of £14 which has already been paid to him represents the maximum compensation allowed in this case under the Regulations. It is not the worth or the honour of the hon. Gentleman that I am condemning; it is the regulations which this House has either brought into being or acquiesced in, the regulations the hon. and gallant Gentleman read to us at about half-past seven this evening. He wrote and said he could not reconsider the case. It is a funny thing that since the man is dead and buried they have reconsidered it and granted some concession to the mother which I am very proud to have, nevertheless it upsets your theory. When you bring out these files and documents and tell us you must be guided by them, I say that in the year 1928 we really ought to have better treatment of men who have braved the perils of the sea, braver men than myself I admit. I have courage enou0 to take 2246 my hat off to such men. I do not decry them, I admire them. But I decry the treatment that you people that cheer them hand out to them when they have been invalided in the service of the nation. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to take this case into consideration and amend the regulations. I am sure no one on this side, and in my opinion very few on that side, would Oppose the emendation of the regulations, and if they did, it would only be in the interests of economy. I am sure we would not consider economy when we are dealing with the treatment meted out to soldiers and sailors invalided because of their service in the War.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I think the experience of the Estimates, both for the Army and the Air Force and to-day for the Navy, shows the absolute necessity of a new method of procedure. It is impossible on the Floor of the House to give that detailed consideration to the Estimates which in the interests of the men of the Services they deserve. I think this House ought to recognise that we must have something on the lines of the French and American committee system which can go into details of this sort upstairs instead of on the Floor of the House. However, one has to take the opportunity one has, and I have been waiting to raise a matter for months, and I have no other opportunity except to-night. It is the use of the Navy and naval personnel, not as volunteers but by orders, for the making of so-called war films. The new slogan should be "Join the Navy and become a film super." There is a statement in the Estimates of 1925, signed by the First Lord, to the effect that economy in the expenditure of fuel was necessary. It is common knowledge that the Fleet at present does not get its proper training at sea owing to lack of fuel. It rarely steams at full speed and manœuvres are severely restricted. In the interests of economy the efficiency of the Fleet is being reduced. But when it comes to making a super film for a private company at a ridiculous charge, out of all commercial proportion to the value of the services rendered, the whole Mediterranean fleet can go to sea to make the film "Coronel," and a large military and naval force is engaged at this moment at Malta in making a film representing 2247 the Gallipoli landings. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"]
The reasons are twofold. One is that I consider this is derogatory to the dignity of the Service. For years there have been regulations prohibiting sailors and officers when in uniform from appearing on the music hall stage, but they are allowed to take part in making these films. They can be film supers. The men are not asked. I know one case of a particular film—and I can give the name in confidence to the First Lord—where orders came down from the Admiralty to a battle cruiser to lend her crew and officers and ward-room, lower deck and messes for making a film. She made an excuse because she was the senior ship there at that time, and she shuffled it on to one of her consorts. That ship developed some defect which necessitated her immediate docking, and she got off. Finally, the junior ship of the squadron had the indignity of making this film. When it was made the officers and crew went to Weymouth to see it first showing in public. They were one and all disgusted. I had that from one of the officers of the ship who told me. He was a senior officer in this ship which had to go through this ignominy. That is one reason, and the other I have already given. There is the shortage of fuel which is limiting the training of the Fleet at the present time, and yet the First Lord orders the whole Mediterranean squadron to go to sea to make a ridiculous footling film like "Coronel" which is historically inaccurate and undignified.
The other point is that these films encourage recruiting. At the present time, the First Lord can pick and choose entrants for the Navy, both officers and men. He can get the finest men, and he need only take about one in six of those who offer themselves. There is no need to encourage recruiting, for he can get the cream of the youth of this country of all classes. It is quite unnecessary for recruiting, but what it does is to encourage militarism. It is supposed to encourage recruiting, because all the horrible details are left out, and war is presented as a romantic chivalrous adventure. It is always the story of the gallant tar who returns to his girl and gets married.

§ Mrs. PHILIPSON
And why not?

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
Because in the War one out of three who enlisted in I914 as volunteers did not return to his girl. That is why. The hon. Member is a member of a very honourable profession, and she knows quite well that, while the world is a stage, the stage does not always accurately represent the world.

The CHAIRMAN
The First Lord is not responsible for that.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I was led away by the hon. Member's interruption.

§ Mrs. PHILIPSON
May I tell the hon. Member that is why I want to see things properly acted on the films.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I should have thought that out-of-work actors and actresses might have done that better than the Navy. The picture of war given in these films is inaccurate. There are certain war films in existence such as "Arras" where one sees it in something of its realism, but the worst parts of such films are cut out before they are released for publication, because you dare not allow people to see war in all its reality. You rely on the hysteria of non-combatants who do not see it in its reality, and therefore you can keep up the illusion of the romantic chivalrous adventure, in which the only men killed are those shot through the head and where the hero always returns, as I say, to his lover. It is no part of the Navy's duty. I reinforce myself by a phrase of the last First Sea Lord of the Admiralty (Admiral Beatty). Speaking on the 10th November, 1925, he used the following words—he was, as a matter of fact, referring to the agitation to keep up certain redundant dockyards—"Is it intended that the Navy Estimates should include the expenditure of money for purposes extraneous to the maintenance of the Fleet? "May I ask the First Lord whether the making of a war film, so called, is necessary for the efficiency of the Fleet? There is no answer. The public do not really want these films. We have had evidence from the trade that only in London are they popular, and that in the provinces the people are 2249 already tired of them. Under the Films Act passed last year, a quota has to be taken of British films and the only films of a correct size made to-day by British companies are War films.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS
Two per cent.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
Yes, but the quota continues to increase year after year. Therefore, a certain proportion has to be shown. The companies, and you cannot blame them, are offered a first-class commercial proposition—the use of the Fleet, warships, trained men for a really nominal charge. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Day), who knows the business and the trade, can tell you that it is common knowledge in Wardour Street that the recompense paid to the Admiralty for the use of naval units and material is simply absurd and out of all proportion to the value. I do not want to put the House to the trouble of a Division at this time of the night, but this is the only opportunity I have had to make my protest. I ask the Admiralty to stop this play-acting, this foolery in the Navy and this prostitution of the King's uniform for the purpose of freak films, which are intended to appeal to the worst instincts of human nature.

§ Commander BELLAIRS
I merely rise for the purpose of asking two questions of my right hon. Friend the First Lord. The first is in reference to a statement in the Paris "New York Herald," that the strengthening of the decks of American battleships has been the subject of a fresh protest on the part of the Government. I sincerely hope that that is not true. I think we had much better leave this alone. My other question is in reference, to a telegram which, I believe, is to be published in the papers to-morrow. I think it would be a great pity, if the telegram is inaccurate, if it were published. It is in reference to the "Royal Oak," and the statement that is to be issued to the Press is that the captain and some of the officers refused to sail under Rear-Admiral Collard and have been court-martialled and carried as passengers to Gibraltar. It is sure to excite a great deal of attention, and I 2250 think that if the Admiralty cannot tell the House now, it ought to issue to the newspapers at the earliest possible moment the actual state of the case.

§ Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON
May I switch off the Debate to the rather duller subject of the dockyards? We have heard that of the 33 ships being built, only 10 are being built in the Royal Yards. We feel this in the Royal Dockyards very severely, in view of the fact that we have no alternative work. As work is taken from us our overhead charges increase and, consequently, it is more difficult as time goes on to compete with private firms. Can the First Lord of the Admiralty tell me, in a few words, how he proposes to give work to the Royal Dockyards in the future?

§ Mr. KELLY
One hears a great deal in these days, particularly from members of the Government, that, in this country, when making purchases of any kind, the purchases should be British. I think the "Buy British Goods" campaign is one that goes to the hearts of members of the Government. The question I want to ask is, whether the Admiralty have a set purpose to give preference to American machinery. I ask that, in view of the fact that within recent weeks I have heard that inquiries have been made by the Admiralty for certain machinery of an expensive type, and that in sending out for it they have given a preference upon the American machine, which I could mention if need be, although I do not want to give it an advertisement. I would ask the First Lord or the Parliamentary Secretary whether it is the policy of the Admiralty to give preference to American machinery?

§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM
I will deal first with the case brought forward by the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves). It is a case in which, apparently, the opinion of the Admiralty doctors was not the same as the opinion of the doctors belonging to the hospital. As the hon. Member stated, the Admiralty medical authorities admitted their error and such reparation as was possible was carried out. It is obvious that you cannot always be infallible, and that medical experts may differ; but that does 2251 not really prove anything one way or the other. I hope that from what I said in the previous Debate the Committee will realise that we have this matter very much to heart and that we are doing our utmost to see that everything is done that can be done for the benefit of the men concerned in case of invaliding.

§ Mr. GROVES
May I remind the hon. and gallant Member that the First Lord of the Admiralty wrote me stating that the case had been reconsidered by the medical authorities at the Admiralty and that, although the disability which resulted in the man's invalidity arose during the period of his service, it was considered that it was of constitutional origin. It was sandfly. The poor man died, and the right hon. Gentleman has made practically no effort at restitution.

§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM
If the hon. Member will get into communication with me we will look into the matter further and see how the position stands. With regard to the question of films, which was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), the policy of the Admiralty is quite simple. There are three kinds of films. There is the historical film, which represents past events in naval history. There is the film which represents something which is actually going on now or has happened recently, such as a special voyage like that undertaken by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. And there are romantic films.
The Admiralty consider that it is advisable and good sound policy, and in the interests of the Navy, to see that, historical films are as accurate as they can be made, and, therefore, they see no harm, indeed they think it right to assist in the production of such films. The one to which the hon. and gallant Member referred so scathingly, I have often been told by those who have seen it, is an extremely good picture. I have not seen it myself, but I have certainly heard that stated. The "Battle of Coronel" was the one mentioned.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman seen 2252 the protests of Admiral Allen. who commanded a ship at the Battles of Coronel and the Falkland Islands?

§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM
I do not know what he protested for or against, but naval friends of mine who are perfectly capable of giving an opinion say that this is a first-class film. At any rate, we have done our best to make it accurate.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
Ask the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish).

§ Rear-Admiral BEAMISH
My name has been mentioned as having taken part in that action. I have seen the film. As far as it is possible to make a historical film accurate, that film is so.

§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM
Finally, there is the romantic film, which deals with supposed scenes of naval life, and that is the kind of film which many people hold it is desirable should be made as accurate as possible, because we do not want the Navy to be made ridiculous on a film or anywhere else. At the same time, certain officers think it undesirable that naval ratings and officers should be employed in that kind of film, and the view of the Admiralty is much the same. Therefore, in a romantic film we do not give the assistance that we do in the other two kinds. I would like the hon. and gallant Member to bear in mind, when he says that we waste money one way or another in utilising ships and ratings and officers in the production of films, that we do derive financial benefit from it, and that a good deal of the money goes to the sports committees of the Navy. I can see no earthly harm in it. On the contrary, I think it is all in the interests of the Navy that this assistance should be given.

§ Mr. T. WILLIAMS
Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman seen the film "We are in the Navy now"?

§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM
No, I have not.

§ Mr. WILLIAMS
May I suggest to the hon. and gallant Member that, if he 2253 wants to eliminate either anti-German propaganda or militarism, he ought to see that film and say what he thinks about it?

§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM
I do not feel it my duty to visit films, in order to do away with militarism or anything else. I was asked two questions by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maid-stone (Commander Bellairs). The first question was as to a report about the strengthening of decks of American battleships. We have no information on the subject at the present moment. With regard to the trouble on the "Royal Oak," we have not yet sufficient information for me to give any answer or to make any remarks on the subject. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) asked about dockyard work. We have endeavoured to give such work as we could to the dockyards. I fully appreciate the difficulties and sympathise with my hon. and gallant Friend, but I hope he will realise that it is not possible for the Admiralty to invent work. We can only utilise such money as we have, and one of the penalties of the moment is that men cannot be employed in the same way as in the past. We are doing our best not to reduce the number of men more than we can help, and we shall keep the dockyards going to the best of our ability.

§ Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON
It is not so much the amount of work that is going as the fact that of the work that is going the Royal dockyards are not getting their proportion, in view of the fact that private firms are doing much better than they were a few years ago.

§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM
I am glad the hon. and gallant Member has made that observation. As a matter of fact, the Royal dockyards are getting a larger proportion of the work now than they have for the last few years, and hon. Members who represent dockyard towns should bear in mind the fact that we have to consider the interests of the Navy and the interests of the country, and we must give work to other parts of the country. We cannot afford to neglect 2254 the private yards but, nevertheless, we are doing our best for the Royal dockyards. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) with regard to machinery, it is not the policy of the Admiralty to employ foreign firms if they can help it. On the contrary, we do our best to encourage home firms, and the case which I fancy he has in mind is one in which we are doing our best to get the piece of machinery we require from a British firm.