NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1928.

HC Deb 19 March 1929 vol 226 cc1625-65

"5. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for Expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grant for Navy Services for the year."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I beg to move, to leave out "99,800" and to insert instead thereof "99,700."

Our naval Debates for the last few years have been mainly preoccupied with questions of strategy, trade routes, cruisers and Geneva Conferences, and the equally important subject of the welfare and happiness and efficiency of the officers and men has perforce been somewhat neglected. I know the First Lord has regretted that he could not devote more of his speeches to this important part of his charge, and I propose to give him the opportunity of supplying the omission. In his explanatory statement issued with the Navy Estimates there is little over half a page, out of some 12 or 13 pages, devoted to the personnel, and in the speech, which I regret I missed hearing, in which the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Estimates—I was away for the first time for 10 years—there was not very much about the officers and men. I want to raise one or two matters upon which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would like to give the House some enlightenment. I should like to know, when he has laid down his office, when he is sitting on the red benches and looks back over his five years as First Lord, what will he think the officers and men will remember him by. Will they be able to say, "This reform or that alteration was brought about in the régime of the right hon. Gentleman"? I do not know if they have a nickname for him. It is an excellent sign if they have. Will he be able to say, "I shall be remembered for all time by such and such a reform." So far, I feel that he will be remembered principally by things upon which perhaps we shall not be able to congratulate him very much. I do not want to refer to such matters as the Geneva Naval Conference or the Anglo-French Naval Pact. I shall remember him by other matters. It was he who by a stroke of the pen, for the sake of saving a very few pounds a year, destroyed the individuality of the two separate corps of the Royal Marine Artillery and the Royal Marine Light Infantry and amalgamated them into one body against the advice of every officer and, I believe, every man in the Royal Marines. He destroyed that priceless thing, tradition, which is easily destroyed but which takes many years to build up, and I do not think he has gained in efficiency. Of course, he has reduced the pay of the whole Navy.

Mr. SPEAKER

Vote A deals only with the number of men. The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot raise any other point than the actual number of men.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I do not think Sir, you would rule me out of order in raising certain sugges- tions which affect the number of men. I want to refer to a few matters affecting the welfare of the men.

Mr. SPEAKER

I do not see how that affects the number of men employed in the Fleet.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

Should I be able to raise that on the next Vote on the pay of the men?

Mr. SPEAKER

The questions the hon. and gallant Gentleman wished to raise were questions affecting pay, and that cannot be raised on this Vote.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I do not think you will rule me out of order about the amalgamation of the two corps of Royal Marines. That affects the numbers.

Mr. SPEAKER

On the question of the numbers of men the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be in order.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I do not want to appear to be altogether criticising the right hon. Gentleman. I believe there is one branch that is very efficient indeed very much affecting the number of men, and that is the training the men receive under what is known as vocational training, so that they can find employment ashore when they leave the Service. Perhaps I might ask what means are taken—I believe they are very good—after the men leave to find jobs for them. Obviously, if it is clear that there is machinery to find employment, there will be no reluctance to reduce the number from time to time. I think I shall bring myself in order by that suggestion. There are very good voluntary organisations, especially for the marines.

Mr. SPEAKER

Voluntary organisations cannot affect the number of men in the Navy.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

Should I be in order in saying if the First Lord can be certain there is a good chance of men who are discharged finding suitable employment he will not be so reluctant to discharge men and it might be possible to make certain economies? The labour market is very overcrowded, and he would naturally seek to make economies in every branch rather than cut down the number of men, and I quite sympathise with him. What is the system? Do the associations who do this vital work receive any grant from Treasury funds?

Mr. SPEAKER

That question is certainly not in order on this Vote.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I am doubtful as to whether I should be in order in raising this question. The right hon. Gentleman promised me that there would be an investigation into whether it was desirable to make certain alterations in the King's Regulations and the Admiralty Instructions, especially with regard to certain matters of discipline.

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. and gallant Gentleman must wait until those Votes come up for discussion.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I was not going to refer to the Naval Law Department or to the procedure of courts martial, but to matters of routine on board ship which affect the men. If I am not in order I will not pursue that. I will raise another matter altogether. I believe the Fleet might be very efficiently manned with a smaller number of men if more labour-saving appliances were introduced. I have here a photograph from the "Times" of 9th March of the most modern and costly battleship in the world, His Majesty's Ship "Nelson." She is, of course, fitted throughout with every kind of labour-saving appliance with regard to supplying ammunition and doing the work of the ships with certain exceptions. She has even a lift to go from the lower deck up to the upper parts of the ship. But certain work is still done by very antiquated methods. This photograph shows a very antiquated method of cleaning the decks known as holy-stoning. I do not want to make too much of this. I was made to holystone decks myself when I went to sea in a seagoing cruiser as a cadet, and a very good thing, too. We had a First Lieutenant who believed in making us do everything an able seaman can do, a splendid system that I approve of, and I hope the present cadets, when they go to sea, are made to do exactly the same duties throughout the day as the seaman, so as to understand his work. This holy-stoning of the decks consists of kneeling down and scrubbing the decks with holy-stones, and it is a very long, slow and laborious job. Here you have these well-educated young men, as I have said, the cream of the population, holy-stoning the decks, and it is really heart-breaking work. I do not want to dwell on this too much, but I am sure that no efficient private firm would think of cleaning its woodwork in this way. Surely, there must be some mechanical way of cleaning decks without this kind of manual labour and waste of time. This work was done in Nelson's day, but there is no reason why, because it was done then that it, like other bad customs, should remain in operation at the present time. I am all for the good traditions, but not for the bad traditions, and this is one of the bad traditions which have survived.

I spoke just now of the amalgamation of the two corps of Royal Marines. I do not know whether it has really resulted in much saving in regard to the number of men. I do not think that it has. It has destroyed a certain amount of tradition and struck a very bitter blow at the pride of those two gallant bodies of men. One result has been, unfortunately, that it has left a great many senior Marine officers without any suitable billets. I understand that of the Marine Lieutenant-Generals only one is employed as an Adjutant-General. I have the numbers here, and I am sorry to see that only one is now fully employed. I should like to make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman which was made many years ago by the late Admiral Lord Fisher. Many of his proposals were very good, and some were not so good. Some of his proposals were carried out, and some were not. This is, I think, an admirable proposal and would prove to be a very useful way of employing the senior Marine officers They might be employed as commanding officers of coast defence areas at Malta, Gibraltar, and our own coast defences. The Marine officer during his training learns a great deal about ships, and he would avoid mistakes such as the mistake which happened in the late War, when a gallant soldier at Dover, I believe, reported three of our trawlers which were coming down the Channel as three German battle cruisers, and the whole Fleet went to sea. There was a tremendous flutter at the Admiralty until the mistake was found out. We should not have such a mistake as was made by a gallant soldier, who, when the "Hampshire" was mined at sea with Field-Marshal Lord Kitchener on board, reported that a battle cruiser was in distress. As the "Hampshire" was an armoured cruiser and he did not report that there was an explosion or that she was sinking, the people of Scapa Flow did not know what he was driving at, asked for further information and there was delay in sending help. I do not say that many more might have been saved, but that kind of mistake could not occur if you had a Marine officer in command of the coast defences.

Captain FANSHAWE

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that after the first explosion—there were two explosions when the "Hampshire" was sunk—the ship was actually down under water in one quarter of an hour? How then does the argument apply about sending help or no help? I think that was rather an unfortunate thing to say regarding this disaster.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I am not sure that help might not have been sent if the full information had been given more quickly. You can send fast craft a long way in a quarter of an hour. I was careful to say that that might not have led to a greater saving of life, but it was one of those unfortunate things that are likely to happen when you have soldiers who are not used to sending naval signals. If you have a marine officer, he is not so likely to make mistakes. I am sure the hon. and gallant Member for Stirling and Clackmannan (Captain Fanshawe) would be glad to see the senior marine officers who had done very good service given suitable employment. I again make the proposal to the right hon. Gentleman. I understand that the War Office would oppose it, but surely the right hon. Gentleman is strong enough to overcome such an objection.

I think that a mistake is being made at the present time by allowing the entry of too many men into the Navy, both officers and men. There are bound to be considerable reductions in the future. The right hon. Gentleman himself has proposed that the size of ships should be reduced by agreement. If you have smaller ships, you require fewer men. That is obvious. I think it is quite likely that the only three Powers that desire to build battleships may agree to build no more when the present battleships become obsolete. This is not an impossible arrangement between the only three naval Powers—ourselves, the Japanese, and the Americans—who are likely to want to build battleships. Then you would have a great redundance of officers and men. No one would wish that these officers and men should not have their futures assured. In any case, they must be properly looked after and compensated if they are discharged, and properly pensioned. The suggestion that any party, least of all the Labour party, would wish to do otherwise is grotesque.

The thing to do, until you are quite certain of future requirements, is to slow down your recruiting both of officers and men. I find that this has not been the case. There has been a slight reduction in the number of boys who have entered, but the number of cadets who have entered remains much the same. I have an answer here that the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to give me, in which I find that in the last four years between 150 and 158 cadets have been entered every year at Dartmouth, and that, in addition, there have been between 40 and 80 by direct entry. It is true that there were only 48 in 1928 by direct entry, but there were 82 in 1927, and 86 in 1926. If you add together the direct entry cadets and the Royal Naval College cadets at Dartmouth, the total numbers are practically the same as when the hon. and gallant Gentleman and myself went into the "Britannia"—about 180 a year—and when we had a far greater Fleet and a far greater naval menace. It is not fair to enter these men in such numbers if there is not an assured career and employment for them in the years that lie ahead. Incidentally, I asked the right hon. Gentleman if he could inform me from what schools they came, and he said that there would be too much labour and expenditure of time involved in giving an answer. Let me tell him that he was misinformed by his staff, because I saw the list at the Admiralty some years ago. Very little time and labour would be involved in getting that information. Perhaps someone does not want to give him this information which is kept tabulated.

The policy to-day with regard to the numbers of officers and men should be to rely as much as possible upon the splendid reserves that we have in the mercantile marine. We often say that a great part of our naval strength is due to the fact that we are still the predominant maritime Power. The men and officers who man our merchant ships are our real reserves. The right hon. Gentleman may say, "Oh, well, naval warfare is so complicated and modern warships are so complex, that you cannot rely sufficiently on the officers and men who are in the naval reserve." If he says that, it is nonsense. Neither he nor I know what a future war may be like, but there is one thing that we can be certain of, and that is that it will be nothing like the last war. In the last war, the officers and men of the Royal Naval Reserve who came from the mercantile marine, especially from the fishing fleets, were admirable. The trawler men who performed anti-submarine and mine-sweeping work were admirable in every way. In addition to that, we had the amateur sailors—the yachtsmen and people of that kind—who joined the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve and became a very valuable adjunct to the Fleet. You should look there for your increase of men, and steps should be taken to foster and to increase the efficiency of the Royal Naval Reserve. Then the right hon. Gentleman would have every right to cut down the number of officers and men by slowing; down recruiting and without causing any injustice at all to the serving personnel. It is on these lines that savings can be made.

Another way in which savings could be made would be by promoting more suitable petty officers and men under the Mate scheme. You would get a trained lieutenant in a fewer number of years at less cost to the State than the expense of entering boys through Dartmouth and training them as midshipmen and sublieutenants and so on. You could get a saving in numbers if you took more care of the health of the men, particularly with regard to tuberculosis. I am sure that a saving in personnel could be made there. I do not want to go into this matter at length, but it is very sad indeed that there should be numbers of men invalided because of tuberculosis. There must be something wrong with the ventilation or living conditions on board ship. The numbers are very great. It is most unfortunate that, when these men who have been chosen after careful medical examination, as I have said, from the cream of the population, are invalided, it should be said that their disability is not due to naval service. I think that the onus should be placed on the Admiralty to prove that the disability is not due to naval service and not upon the men to prove that it is due to naval service. There is great heart burning in naval circles and constituencies, where there are a great number of naval men's families, at the way in which these men have been treated. You take boys perfectly fit and healthy, and, after a few years, they go down with this terrible disease, and you say that it is not attributable to naval service unless the boy can prove that it is.

There is another matter which affects the numbers to some extent. It relates to the submarine service. This used to be far more unhealthy than it is now, and the wastage in the submarine service used to be worse than it is at the present time. The improved conditions, no doubt, are due to the larger submarines and the fact that the service is altogether better. When submarines were started, all men were volunteers, and you had no lack of volunteers. The very fact that it was supposed to be a dangerous service made men rather proud of it, and it had a good effect on moral and discipline. Nowadays, I am afraid, every man entering the Service is made to sign a declaration that he is willing to serve in submarines. Why has the old voluntary system for submarines been abandoned? What is the object? By that you destroy a certain amount of pride.

Mr. SPEAKER

How does the hon. and gallant Member relate this argument to the number of recruits?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

It might affect the number of men offering if they knew that they had to volunteer for submarines. The right hon. Gentleman in speaking of the number of personnel mentioned that the number of Naval members of the Board of Admiralty was less. I was sorry to hear that. I do not like to see such a reduction. He was good enough to assure me that the reductions at the Admiralty would not be at the expense of the Naval side of the staff.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam)

That reductions would not be made which would affect the efficiency of the staff.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I understand that the Assistant Chief of the Naval Staff is now not on the Board. That reduces the Naval element, but strengthens the civilian element. I understand that he is not going to leave the Admiralty, but that he is going to remain in an advisory capacity. If so, there is no reduction in numbers. May I ask if any reduction in the number of officers has been brought about by the reactionary step in suppressing the Trade Division of the Admiralty? I have referred to our wonderful reserves in the Mercantile Marine. The Trade Division of the Admiralty was the liaison between the Navy and the Mercantile Marine. It was abolished in a wave of economy in 1909, but it had to be re-established in 1913. I have spoken to very distinguished officers who served in the Trade Division, who said that when they came back to it after four years it was difficult to pick up the threads. I understand that the Trade Division has been absorbed partly in the Intelligence Division and partly in the Plans Division. I look upon it as a most important Division. We have heard from the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby) about trade routes and the defence of trade routes. One of the weaknesses which was discovered in the War was the lack of knowledge of the Mercantile Marine and its methods by the Royal Navy. There was a divorcement between the two services, and we suffered from lack of knowledge of the trade routes. The Trade Division existed to put that sort of thing right, and it was a retrograde step to abolish it.

I should like to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it would make much difference to the numbers of officers and men carried if the amount of leave that is given to the officers and men when they have served in commands abroad, was increased. To-day, a man serves an enormous length of time abroad; that is inevitable owing to the number of ships on foreign stations. Life in the Navy now is more strenuous than it used to be, and a greater proportion of the officers and men are married, which is a good thing. When they come back after three years' commission abroad they are entitled to a fortnight's leave for each year served abroad. I think there ought to be a longer period allowed. With the present number of officers and men, could the amount of foreign service leave be increased?

I believe that a saving in the number of men could be brought about by having fewer men but securing greater efficiency. We must attract to the Service the very best type of men, physically and mentally. In order to do so, we must do what the Admiralty have, in theory, been attempting to do ever since the régime of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1911, namely, to provide an avenue of promotion from the lower deck to the quarter-deck and the higher command. When the late Lord Long was First Lord he introduced a revised scheme for promotion from the lower deck, and he said something like this, that there was now a clear avenue, that every sailor boy would have an admiral's flag in his kitbag, and that it would be possible for a man of ability and efficiency to rise from the lower deck to any rank in the Service. Let us see how this scheme has worked out in practice. I am going to accuse the present First Lord of the Admiralty of deliberately blocking the channel. I do not refer so much to his narrowing of the channel but to his blocking one end almost completely. Therefore, I accuse him. It is false economy, because if you discourage the best young men from entering the Service as seamen, you must have more of the inefficient sort.

A scheme was introduced in 1913 under the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was First Lord of the Admiralty. He did some good things, and this was one of them; but he did some good things in the wrong way. From 1913 to 1918 some 371 petty officers and young warrant officers were commissioned as mates. This was one of the right things which was done in the wrong way. A mistake was made in reviving the old title of "mate" to apply to these officers. Formerly, the title of "mate" was applied to navigating officers pure and simple. The late Captain James Cook entered as a mate, although he was a different sort of mate than was referred to by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha). By reviving the old title of "mate" and earmarking these promoted men as mates, it meant differentiating them from the other officers. In the Army I understand that that is not the case. The ranker officer becomes an officer, and there is no sign in his name or in anything else to distinguish him from the officers who came from Sandhurst and Woolwich. In the Navy, we have done quite differently. We have sent these men to the wardroom straight away—

Mr. SPEAKER

This has nothing to do with the Vote.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

With respect, I would point out that if we attract the best type of men into the Navy, we can cut down the personnel to a certain extent, whereas if we have a greater number of men not so efficient, we cannot cut down the numbers. Therefore, we could reduce the number of officers entering in the beginning, by promoting suitable men from the lower deck. During the six years 1913–1918, 371 mates were promoted and 161 mates, E, were promoted, making a total of 532 in the six years up to the Armistice. In the six years 1919–2924, only 32 mates and 39 mates, E, were promoted, a total of 71. In the four years 1925–1928, only 29 were promoted mates, so the channel has been narrowed very much. It has also been blocked at the other end. Of the 200 mates who were promoted between 1913–1915, only two have been promoted to the rank of commander. These gentlemen went through four years of the War as commissioned officers.

Mr. SPEAKER

Promotions will make no difference in the numbers. There must be the same number, from whatever source they are promoted.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

There would be this difference, that if they had not been promoted they would have retired earlier at the age of 40, whereas as mates they are able to remain longer. That would make a difference in the numbers.

Mr. SPEAKER

It would not make any difference in the total number.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

With very great respect, I believe it would. One of my complaints against the right hon. Gentleman is that he has not allowed for these promotions by reducing the number of officers, ex-cadets. He is still introducing the same number of cadets, and there is a superabundance of officers. During the same period that I have quoted, 125 ex-cadets passed through the same zone and have been promoted, compared with only two mates who have been promoted as commanders. I do not think that anyone can defend such meagre promotion for the men from the lower deck. None of the latter men have yet reached Flag rank. There is no captain on the active list to-day who came from the lower deck, but there are two commanders. There was one captain, the late Captain Lyne, but he retired many years ago. That was not the case in the earlier period. The hon. Member for Devonport said that the Navy had never been able to show careers like that of the late Field-Marshal Sir William Roberston in the Army.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

I did not say that.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

If the hon. Member will look in the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will find that he made that statement. He is quite wrong. We have had a great many most distinguished officers who have been promoted from the lower deck. I have referred to Captain James Cook. It is true that he was a master's mate, but he entered into a branch of the Service the members of which were not usually promoted to high rank. He became one of the greatest of navigators. Then, there was Sir Christopher Myngs, an Admiral who died fighting in his own battleship, and Sir Edward Spragge.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

What date?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

In the Napoleonic Wars.

Mr. SPEAKER

This argument is quite irrelevant to the Vote.

5.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I thought that I should have been in order in comparing the slow promotion of these gentlemen from the lower deck to-day with the more rapid promotion of the men from the lower deck in an earlier age in the Navy, but I do not wish to pursue the subject. However, I have made my point, that this channel of promotion has been blocked. One of the, best avenues of promotion has been specialisation, and in this regard, despite the promises of the right hon. Gentleman, the chance of specialising has not been given to any of these gentlemen, except in two cases. An Admiralty Fleet Order was issued, No. 1095, in 1926, in which it said that ex-mates would be eligible to specialise under the same conditions as ex-cadets. In 1928 the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, in an answer in this House, said that only two ex-mates had been selected for specialisation. As a consequence of this, we have a redundancy of officers on shore jobs. These mates have not had a fair crack of the whip at all; and the Admiralty have not served the best interests of the Navy by their action in this matter. The Navy belongs to the whole nation and not to any one class. The Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, on the 14th March, speaking with the cynicism of the First Lord but without his wit, said that this was due to the fact that there was a blockade in promotion.

These ex-mates have not had their fair proportion of promotions. These 200 gentlemen, if they had been promoted in the same proportion as ex-cadets, would have had 30 or 40 promotions to commander given them. Only two have been promoted, and I say that the whole question should be inquired into. The hon. Member for Devonport has suggested a committee of inquiry. I suggest that such a committee should inquire into the whole system of promotions from the lower deck to commissioned rank, and into the position of the 59 or 60 of the former ex-mates of the first 200 specially chosen from the whole Navy, who still remain on the active list. There was another naval officer—perhaps the hon. Member for Devonport would like to know—who came from humble origin: Sir Francis Drake. One of his principles, which would solve this and many other customs in the Navy was this. He said: "Let the gentlemen haul with the mariners, and mariners with the gentlemen; all shall be of one company." I commend the words of that great Elizabethan Admiral to the First Lord.

Mr. KELLY

I beg to second the Amendment.

I desire to raise one or two points of interest, which I hope either the First Lord or the Financial Secretary will deal with. In the White Paper there is a reference to a reduction in the number of men by 1,000, and a statement that there is expectation of a further reduction of 1,000. This would make a reduction of 3,000 on the numbers borne on the books on the 1st April, 1928. May I ask how this reduction is being arrived at? Is it because of any change in ships, or because of a better understanding with other nations, or is it arrived at by a rule of thumb method? The question of adequate provisions to prevent the spread of tuberculosis amongst the men is important, as this is having a great effect upon those who desire to join the Navy. In the White Paper there is a reference to the number of men who are loaned to the Dominions and foreign Governments. Is this responsible for the reduction to which I have referred? If so, it can hardly be in keeping with the explanatory statement because the Admiralty do not, I think, consider that these men are off the active list even if they are off the pay roll, as far as the Admiralty is concerned.

In Vote A there is a reference to the total naval and marine officers and men of the Royal Marine Police Force. Is it the intention to increase the numbers of the Royal Marine Police Force in view of the extra duties which, I am told, are to be imposed upon them in taking the place of Metropolitan constables who have had charge of police duties at the various dockyards? Does this alteration in numbers mean an alteration in the number of engineer officers? Is there a decrease in their number, or is there to be an increase in order to meet the mechanical requirements of the present time? This applies also to the case of the boys. We have a footnote to the effect that 136 boy shipwrights are under training in the dockyards. Are they in training for Fleet service or for work in the dockyards? Then the number of naval cadets at Dartmouth College is 550. Is this in expectation of an increase in the number of officers in the future? While a considerable decrease is spoken of in certain sections there is an increase in the number of petty officers and seamen. I really cannot understand, in view of the many professions that there is a better understanding throughout the world, why we should require to place on the shoulders of the taxpayers of this country the responsibility for maintaining such a huge force as we are providing for in these Estimates.

Commander SOUTHBY

I rise to answer one or two of the points which have been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). I am opposed to the Amendment he has proposed but I should like to thank him for his kindly references to myself at the beginning of his speech. He has covered an immense amount of naval territory; in fact, he have roamed from holystones to marine generals, but I think he might have taken the House a little more into his confidence with regard to the question of personnel, with which he was supposed to be dealing. As a naval officer he knows that the personnel of ships is worked out on the fighting and working necessities of the ship itself. It is impossible to duplicate duties beyond a certain point. The hon. and gallant Member referred to some proposals which were made by the late Lord Fisher, but he will agree that many of the proposals which the late Admiral Fisher made were not considered altogether good or necessary. I believe Lord Fisher once said that he would like to do away with paymasters, doctors, and chaplains in the Navy, and institute one rank, that of a medical missionary with a knowledge of accounts. I do not suppose the hon. and gallant Member desires to return to that position. I am glad the hon. and gallant Member remembers his holystoning days, but it does not always mean a saving in personnel to introduce mechanical means Other troubles come in with them. Paint-spraying, as against painting by ordinary manual labour, is an instance. In the new ships with their water-tight sub-divisions, and immense size we have to some extent done away with the boatswain's mate, and, if I understand the hon. and gallant Member, he is proposing to carry this still further, and introduce a kind of automatic boatswain as well as a mechanical boatswain's mate.

He has referred to the fact that the same number of cadets are now being trained as in the days when he and I went to the "Britannia." May I remind him that sometime, just before the War, when our ships were being re-fitted he and I possibly suffered in the same way from the fact that we had to go temporarily to other ships in the Fleet in order to make good the shortage of watchkeeping officers, and therefore the ships refitting did not have the complement of officers which was required in order to make their refit really efficient. It is important that sufficient officers are being sent into naval service in order that the duties are properly carried out without inflicting any hardship. The hon. and gallant Member also referred to the personal feeling for the present First Lord of the Admiralty on the part of the men and officers of the Royal Navy. I think I voice the views of the House of Commons and also of the Navy when I say that they will remember him as a First Lord in whom they could always have implicit trust to do everything he could not only for the officers but for the men of the lower deck. Then with regard to the question of the merchant seamen to whom the hon. and gallant Member referred. It would be very bad policy to rely on the men from the mercantile marine for the manning of ships in His Majesty's Navy. It requires continuous study of modern conditions to make an efficient seaman in the Fleet and, much more important, the proper place for a merchant seaman is in a merchant ship. That is particularly necessary during war. The last war showed us how necessary it was to have an efficient mercantile marine, and if you are going to take this personnel away from their proper duties and put them into the Fleet you are going to live in a fool's paradise if you should ever go to war. The hon. and gallant Gentleman also referred to coast watching in the Orkneys and Shetlands during the War. I am not sure that I understood him aright, but in the same breath almost he was trying to find new jobs for marine generals. I do not know whether his suggestion is that surplus marine generals should be given the job of coast watching. I do not think such a scheme could possibly be successful. As a matter of fact, at Scapa during the War, a large number of the garrison were marines, at any rate at the beginning.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not want to misrepresent me. When I spoke of senior marine officers, such as colonels and generals, I had in mind the position of commanding officer at places like Gibraltar and Malta, to which army generals are now appointed.

Commander SOUTHBY

I am sure that I would not misrepresent the hon. and gallant Member. When I interrupted him in his speech I rose to call attention to the fact that probably by a slip of the tongue he rather anticipated an event which we hope is very far distant, namely, the death of Sir William Robertson. He alluded to Sir William Robertson as "the late." I understand that Sir William Robertson is extremely alive, and I am very glad to be able to say so. I beg to oppose the Amendment.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS

I am sure that every hon. Member must be conscious of the difficulty in raising any question as to the number of men said to be desirable for the Fleet. However, there was a Report issued a few years ago, not by partisans or by Members who were on the opposite side to that of the Government, but by men well known in public life and in the shipping world. I refer to the Geddes Committee. I would remind the House of the composition of that Committee. Sir Eric Geddes presided over the Committee, and he had as his colleagues Lord Inchcape, Lord Faringdon, Sir Joseph Maclay, and Sir Guy Granet. These well known public men spent much time in analysing different Departments of State. One Department which they analysed closely was the Admiralty, and they dealt with the question of the number of men required at that time for the Fleet. In their Report, which was presented to the Chancellor of the Exchequer seven years ago, they said: We have considered what would be a reasonable allowance for the active personnel of the Navy in all the circumstances existing to-day, and we make the following suggestions. They went into the reasons why they had come to the final total figure, which is to be found on page 16 of their Report. They came to the conclusion that the total number of men required seven years ago was 88,400. Yet this afternoon the Admiralty ask the House to sanction a total personnel of 99,800. It is not for me or for any hon. Member on such technical questions as the number of officers and men required to man effectively the present fighting strength of the Navy, to question the First Lord and his officers, but we are fortified in the recommendations of the Geddes Committee, especially when we read in the Report of seven years ago that the Committee "took no account of other circumstances which might well lead the First Lord of the Admiralty to reduce the number still further." In their final recommendation the Geddes Committee used these words: In these recommendations no account is taken of large savings which might result from the proposals arising out of the Washington Conference, such as the discontinuance of the construction of the four capital ships. The Committee also stated: We have based our proportionate estimate of the manning of groups II and III on the 1914 standard. We think that the Admiralty would be able, on investigation, to adopt in these groups a less immediate state of readiness, now that there is no German threat to fear, with reduction in personnel. It is true that the Admiralty of that time torpedoed the recommendations of the Geddes Committee of 1921. If one has regard to the international situation to-day, in comparison with the situation that existed seven years ago, I do not think there is any justification for the Admiralty demanding 10,000 more men than the Geddes Committee thought necessary. For that reason, and not because of any technical knowledge of the situation, I suggest that regard should be had to the report of this impartial committee which was composed of able and experienced men who were not tainted with any desire to criticise unduly or unfairly His Majesty's Government of that time. The Committee said that in their judgment the numbers required seven years ago were 10,000 less than those that the Admiralty are asking for this afternoon. If the Amendment is pressed to a Division, I shall fall back on the recommendations of the Geddes Committee as a very weighty justification for joining issue with the policy of the First Lord.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE

It is not easy to follow my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), because he was so often pulled up on the different subjects he mentioned, and I am afraid that in replying to him I may find myself in the same position. With much that he said I am naturally in agreement. He knows the Navy and I am a humble, student of it. I would like, with him, to congratulate the First Lord on the statement which he made to the House, and I am sure I can express on behalf of the dockyards constituencies the sincere regret which they will feel when the First Lord leaves his post; and if, as has been suggested, my right hon. Friend finds himself on the red benches, I hope that he will still represent the Navy. Then we shall not lose him, although he may be gone from this House.

A great writer once said that the Royal Navy is really the man at the wheel of the State. Although its importance is not, perhaps, recognised as it ought to be, that is what the Navy is and that is what the First Lord represents—the man at the wheel of the State. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull made what, I think, was one incorrect statement, when he said that the Government had reduced the pay of the whole Navy. It is true that from a certain date every man entering the Navy has smaller pay, but that does not apply to the whole Navy, and there are now in the Navy hundreds of thousands of men who are receiving the old rate of pay. The statement of the hon. and gallant Member on this subject, like most general statements, was rash, but as it may be made use of, and as my hon. Friend's speeches are heard in larger spheres than in this House—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert)

I did not hear the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), but this is a Vote for the numbers of men required, and not for their pay.

Sir B. FALLE

That is so, but the numbers of men and the question of their pay must bear a very intimate relation to each other. However, I shall not pursue the subject. My hon. and gallant Friend thought it would be a good thing to reduce the number of men in the Fleet. Naturally I do not agree with him. I repudiate also the suggestion that if we reduced the number we could possibly enlist a better type of man. I think that we have and that at the moment we are enlisting a very fine type of man. I see great numbers of them, and I believe that from the physical and mental standpoint it would be difficult to obtain a finer body of men anywhere. The number that we enlist in my humble opinion, instead of being too large is too small.

Hon. Members opposite have referred to tuberculosis in the Service and they ask what the First Lord had done for the Service. My right hon. Friend has tackled the question of tuberculosis in the Navy and he deserves the thanks of every man who takes an interest in that great Service. A very short time ago the men who were invalided from the Navy for tuberculosis, attributable to or aggravated by service, were 3 per cent. only. In the last return under the new rules formulated by him the percentage is over 60 per cent. I hope that progress will continue, and that if possible even more care may be taken so that these men are properly looked after. Already there has been this enormous stride in advance; it is something more than a step, it is a stride. When you couple that with the new announcement about the men of the Royal Fleet Reserve, you get a very satisfactory account of the First Lord's work during the last phase of his term of office.

One other point to which I would refer is the question of the mates. I agree with every word that has been said on the subject by the hon. and gallant Member opposite. It is not necessary to reinforce what he said, but I hope that his words will weigh with the Admiralty in the future, when, as I anticipate, the present occupants of the Front bench are again returned with a majority. If I were a betting man I would give any man a large bet on that point. [Interruption.] I hope that in the future we shall have the same First Lord and the same Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. If we do, then I believe we shall progress, in relation to all these matters which I have mentioned, faster than any other Government could hope to do.

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG

I wish to put some questions in regard to the particular branch of the naval service in which I am most closely interested. I have been in communication with the right hon. Gentleman and the Parlia- mentary Secretary and I want to thank them both for their courtesy, and for the explicit answers which I have received from them. I would only remind the Parliamentary Secretary that I have a letter here dated 24th January in relation to the recruitment of engineering mechanics and artificer apprentices and that he has not yet carried out his promise to write to me again on the subject. Two months have passed since I received that communication, and I trust he will let me have his further reply as speedily as possible. As I say, I am particularly interested in the engineering branch of the Navy, and before putting some questions about artificers and apprentice artificers I would like to read to the House the opinion of Sir Alan Anderson on this branch of the Navy, expressed in his presidential address to the marine engineers: The marine engineer is an indispensable expert and, as mechanical knowledge improves, he grows in importance. If the pay and position of the marine engineer do not keep pace with the marine engine, the right men are not tempted to serve, and, not only the engine suffers but also the sea transport upon which all of us depend. He also said: At the moment there are seven or eight different systems in force for obtaining naval engineer officers some of them very expensive, others badly conceived giving rise to the remark of Admiral Sir Reginald Bacon in his 'Naval Scrap Book,' that engineering was a great stumbling block to those who had no mind for mechanical details. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will look into this matter of the "seven or eight different systems in force for obtaining naval engineer officers." I should be pleased to have some statement from him as to what those systems are. A distinguished person said the other day that a ship was useless without an engine, and, I presume, that an engine is not much use without an engineer. I am obliged to the First Lord for expressing the opinion in his speech that the artificer apprentices had done excellent work in adverse circumstances. I am also thankful for the better accommodation which the right hon. Gentleman has been providing for them at Chatham. I appreciate what has been done in this respect, and I trust that it will give satisfaction, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman: Why should the provision of this better accommoda- tion be accompanied by annoying regulations which have the effect of discouraging young men from entering the Service? I remember writing on previous occasions about what seemed to be quite unnecessary alterations in relation to uniforms. I find now that there has been a reduction of status and that these men enter as first-class petty officers, instead of as acting chief petty officers. What is the necessity for altering titles in this way? Surely it is not necessary that men should suddenly have their status reduced by some such alteration in title which only serves to create dissatisfaction.

I should also like to know how many apprentices have been promoted. I ask this question with a view to getting new entrants to join the Service, and to take an active interest in the engineering branch. It would be interesting to know how many of them have been promoted to the rank of Midshipman E since that rank was instituted, and how many can be promoted every year. I am under the impression that the promotions are so few that engineers are disheartened about their chances of advancement. If these young apprentices have greater scope in the matter of promotion the Admiralty will get a better type of youngster—those who are willing to dedicate their whole lives to the Service. In relation to this Vote I find that there is an increase of 130 executive officers and 396 seamen. I am not saying that these additional numbers are not needed but, on the other hand, there appears to be a reduction of 65 engineer officers, seven warrant engineers, 60 engine room artificers and 265 stokers. It seems remarkable that we should have an increase in the number of executive officers and seamen, while the engineering department is being rigorously cut down. I do not object to a reduction if it is found to be necessary, but the Admiralty have recently been advertising for qualified engineers. I would like to know if there is any difficulty at the moment, even apart from this reduction, in getting the complement for the ships which are commissioned from time to time.

I recently raised some questions in regard to service at home in connection with the point about the shortage of engineer artificers. These men complain that they are being sent abroad for very long periods. I should like to know if I am right in saying that a man is regarded as being on home service who may be with the Atlantic Fleet all the time. That is a matter into which some inquiry ought to be made. I gather that there are 27 commissioned engineers going on pension, which is more than last year, but that seven lets than last year are going to be borne on the Vote. Does this mean that 20 warrant engineers are going to be raised to the rank of commissioned engineer and that 20 artificers are going to be raised to the rank of warrant engineers? I hope I am right in my deduction, and, if that is so, I certainly compliment the right hon. Gentleman, because I feel that some encouragement is required in this branch of the Navy. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will look into these points as early as possible, and that I may have an answer soon to the letter which I have mentioned.

Mr. WILLIAM BENNETT

It is with very considerable trepidation that one ventures to intervene in a Debate on the Navy when there are so many specialists present. But I should like to support this Amendment and in doing so I would draw attention particularly to the numbers given under the heading of "Scientific Services." Under this heading we find this year there are 31 of all ranks as against 28 last year I suggest that this number—which shows an increase of three men on the scientific side of the Navy—is either 31 too many, or else is quite ridiculously inadequate. I understand on the best authority that the next war will not be fought either by technically perfect cruisers and battleships or by highly developed mechanised armies but that it will be largely a matter of poison gas or even disease germs. May I support that statement by a quotation? A study of Diseases—of Pestilences methodically prepared and deliberately launched upon man and beast—is certainly being pursued in the laboratories of more than one country. Blight to destroy crops. Anthrax to slay horses and cattle. Plague to poison not armies only, but whole districts. Is that correct or not? It is on very good authority because the name attached to it is that of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Sir B. FALLE

I was not questioning the hon. Member's statement. I was only thinking what a cheerful statement it was.

Mr. BENNETT

I think the hon. Member smiled, but it does not seem to me to be a matter for smiling. I can visualise new and magnificent fleets of cruisers rushing across the seas, working splendidly in every mechanical detail, but with every man on board dead. The excuse for the Navy is the defence of this country, but there is no defence in the best Navy in the world against such methods as those indicated in the quotation which I have just given. There does not seem to be any reason why submarines should not launch clouds of poison gas against coast towns, and no perfection in your Navy can prevent it. The only people who can meet these methods are the scientists themselves. Enormous improvements have been made in the weapons of war. We have gone far since the days of the stone-axe or the bow and arrow—although the Army still provides some men with spurs, and I know of a case of one who during the War sat at a clerk's desk equipped with spurs. The hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby) referred to a fool's paradise, and it seems to me that we are living in a fool's paradise. I wish we could have a discussion on all these Services together. As a new Member I have been amazed at the perfect calm with which these Estimates are discussed in the House. I feel very much alarmed about it. In regard to this provision of 31 men in the scientific branch of the Service, I would inquire if we have abandoned the idea of poison gas and disease germs? I have seen it reported in the Press that the Germans say that they are not going to use poison gas and are prepared to abandon it altogether. Does this small number in this Department mean that we are also prepared to do so?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

I think the hon. Member is labouring under some misapprehension. These 31 men to whom he is referring with so much alarm are only naval officers who are attached to the scientific establishment, and if he looks at Vote 6, I hope he will be reassured on that point.

Mr. BENNETT

I presume there are a great many more there.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

The hon. Member said we were not giving sufficient attention to scientific research, but if he looks at Vote 6, I hope he will be reassured on that point.

Mr. BENNETT

I am reassured that we have a very great deal more than the numbers that are given here, and that is all the more reason why I should support the Amendment to reduce the Vote. If, on the other hand, they are engaged in discovering antidotes to these poisons and diseases, then indeed it is a magnificent occupation, but I understood that the Navy was a fighting Service, and that its object was either to defend this country or to terrify our enemies into not going to war with us at all. If it is true that these men are engaged in the humanitarian task of discovering whether there is some antidote against the civilian population of this country being brought to a ghastly and miserable end in the next war, one could not possibly object to that.

If this weapon is to be done away with and plague germs and poison gas are not to be used, then we are on the horns of this dilemma, that if it is possible to disarm in relation to poison gas, it is certainly possible to disarm in regard to battleships, submarines, or tanks; and I maintain that unless you are prepared to come to a complete agreement, you cannot do away with poison gas or disease germs. Once any weapon of destruction is invented or discovered by man, nothing on earth, except abolishing war altogether, can prevent its use up to the hilt when a nation is convinced that it is fighting in its own defence, and if hon. Members think the warrior of the future is going to be either an Admiralty officer with his gold lace or a great soldier with his sword, they are mistaken. The future remains with the chemist and the poisoner, probably in an overall or a black suit, and this situation is necessarily brought about by the crime committed by the present Government when in 1926 they refused to accept arbitration treaties with Switzerland and Holland.

Sir GERALD HOHLER

The reduction that has been used seems to be quite unreal. We have not been informed by those responsible for moving it in what respect the reduction would take place. There was no suggestion made that our ships were overmanned and that a reduction should be made in the complements of these vessels. It is simply one of those vague attacks which the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) is so competent to make and never brings home. I cannot help thinking that in making that speech he was making it with some hope that one day he may be the First Lord of the Admiralty, and all I have to say is, God save the Admiralty in those circumstances! He attacks the dockyards, and nothing ever satisfies him, and the only merit of those attacks is that for the moment he is, I suppose, on half pay in His Majesty's Navy.

I want to know a little more about this Vote for a reduction in the number of men, whether it is suggested that one ship, for instance, should be taken out of commission, and, if so, which ship. Nothing of the kind has been told us, and, as far as I can see, if this reduction is to be carried to a Division, the hon. Members opposite might just as well vote against the whole of the Navy Vote. They did it on one occasion, and they might just as well do it again. The hon. Member for South Battersea (Mr. W. Bennett) says he does not understand our procedure and wonders why his stupid predecessors have not improved it long ago. If he is ever returned to this House again, he may grow wiser as he gets more experience. Fancy the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force all being dealt with as one subject, and nobody understanding on which subject he was speaking! The hon. Member referred to scientific services, and if he really thinks the Admiralty is concerned with microbes and with poison gas, I wish he would refer me to the page in the Estimates which deals with them. I am bound to say that I am ignorant of it, but that is far from saying, of course, that they are not there.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty tried to put the hon. Member right, and referred him to Vote 6, which deals with these scientific services. It may be that, as the hon. Member grows older and studies these things more, he will find that there are such things as Greenwich Observatory, charting the seas, and services of that kind. When the hon. Member refers to his high authority in regard to poison gas and germs, how silly it was as connected with this Vote. What have germs that are to kill all human kind and poison gas that is to destroy crops to do with the Navy? The bon. Member conjured up quite a new idea. Whether it will take root and become an additional expense on the Navy Estimates, I cannot say, but, apparently, torpedoes are to discharge poison gas at towns on the coast, to the death and damnation of every inhabitant.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. and learned Member for Gillingham (Sir G. Hohler) has been much longer in the House than has the hon. Member to whose speech he is referring, and I think he will realise that this matter comes on a different Vote from the one we are now discussing.

Sir G. HOHLER

I agree, but I think, in justice, there sits the offender. However, I abide by your Ruling. I wish to make what is a comparatively small point, but these small points are of great importance to individuals. I wish to draw the attention of my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty to the position of what are called the supply services. There has been a great lack of promotion there. I think I am right in saying that under an Order of 1910 these supply services, which I think also include the writers, were granted warrant rank, but it was granted to them for long and zealous service. That means something like 10 to 18 years. These services are filled, through advertisements, by men partly drawn from shore, to whom is held out the prospect that they will obtain warrant rank and so get commissioned rank on retirement, which is of vast importance in regard to their comfort in later life. That has proved to be a fallacious promise, because there are other Orders which have qualified and somewhat cut it down, though I will not deal with them now.

These men coming from the shore may be 18 years of age or they may be older, and if they are older, it is fatal to their chance. Recently the Admiralty have been admitting to the Navy boys from Greenwich school, who enter the Navy at 18, and consequently, when the time comes for promotion, which is necessarily limited, the awards for long and zealous service almost invariably go to the boys from Greenwich School, not because their service has been better or more zealous than that of the men coming from the shore, but because they have the immense advantage of having entered the Navy immediately on reaching the age of 18. Therefore, when the time comes to receive the award, they are, in regard to age, in advance of the men from the shore. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will look into this matter. He will understand how the men feel these things and how disappointed they are, when they entered the Navy with this prospect held out to them, that in so few cases it can be realised.

I am not going to ask my hon. and gallant Friend to reply now, because I have given him no notice of this question, and it is probable that he is not familiar offhand with the Orders that deal with it. Therefore, I propose, if I may, to write to him on the subject, in order that it may be looked into, but I thought I would like to call attention to it now, because men often think that, unless you put their views before the House, they are never dealt with at all. It is not true, but it is better to put these matters before the Admiralty in the House, so that the men will know that their case is being raised and considered.

Mr. AMMON

There are two points that have been raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) which I want to emphasise. In the first place, I hope the hon. and gallant Member the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty will be able to give us some definite information as to what action the Admiralty have taken with regard to the rather alarming rate of tuberculosis among the men below decks, and whether anything is being done to meet the position that arises when they have to be compulsorily retired from the Service. I have had to bring a few cases before the Admiralty during the last year or so, which show that this is rather a serious matter. The only other matter to which I want to refer is the question of promotion from the lower deck, and is concerned with the title of "mate." I do not want to exaggerate, but I have had three or four letters on this subject from men who evidently feel it a grievance that they are rather speckled birds, so to speak, among the officer class when they get there with this particular title, via the wardroom instead of via the gunroom, which one suggests can be done now, as you are recruiting at a lower age than formerly. Germane to that, on page 12 of this Vote, is a footnote referring to 555 cadets in Dartmouth College. An investigation was being made in the Admiralty with a view to infusing new blood into the officer class, and, in view of the spread of higher education among the mass of people, to see whether it would be possible to recruit the cadets from the secondary schools. Hitherto, for the main part, the cadets have been recruited from the preparatory schools, but that system is out-of-date, and I should like to know whether the matter is being pursued.

6.0. p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

This Debate has ranged over a very wide area, and a certain number of points which have been raised have been ruled out of order. I shall not, therefore, answer those points, but I shall be glad to give any information in my power to the hon. Members who raised them if they will refer to me; for instance, with regard to the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) as to the steps we have taken to find employment for officers and men when they leave the Service, I shall be glad to explain the whole system to him. An important point that has been raised refers to the numbers on Vote A. It is rather sad for us who have laboured so hard, and I think effectively, to reduce the numbers of the Navy to what we consider the lowest possible figure, to find how little sympathy we receive, or how little satisfaction we seem to give to Members of the Opposition. They are like Oliver Twist asking for more, and at the present moment we do not see our way to give them more.

The hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) was rather typical of a certain type of mind in the way in which he was perfectly content to accept as gospel the opinion of the Geddes Committee, and was satisfied to believe that, because the Geddes Committee decided by a stroke of the pen, so to speak, that a certain number of officers and men was necessary to the Navy at that date, that figure was the right figure for the present time. He spoke contemptuously of the action of the Admiralty in regard to the Geddes Report by saying that they torpedoed it. He did not explain why the Admiralty torpedoed it. The Admiralty, at the time considered that the Committee had arrived at their figures on a wrong basis. The Admiralty reply stated: The Committee fell into almost every possible error in the series of calculations leading them to the conclusion that only 86,600 men were required for the service of the Fleet. For instance, they omitted to make any allowance whatever for the fact that men would be sick, and on passage to and from foreign stations, at the moment of mobilisation, as at any other moment—an omission of some thousands. They treated 4,347 men whose posts are fixed in peace, and who, therefore, cannot be used for training reliefs, etc., as if they were available for these purposes, and thus introduced another error amounting to thousands into their calculations. I will not go further into the answer of the Admiralty at the time. I am only pointing out that it is extremely difficult for any body of persons, however gifted and talented they may be, to go into technical matters of this nature and lay down the gospel without taking into consideration every available fact.

Sir G. COLLINS

May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to reply to this further point? How is it that eight years have passed and other navies have been reduced? The Geddes Committee reported in 1921, a new situation has arisen to-day, and yet the Admiralty are still asking for 10,000 more men.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

If the hon. Member will allow me Jo develop my argument, I will try to reply, because this is a matter to which I have given very serious consideration, and on which I have worked very hard, and therefore I feel that I can answer him perfectly well. The statement which he makes that the personnel of other navies have been reduced is open to considerable question, but that does not enter into this matter at all. We have to find out how many men are required for the ships that form our Fleet, and we have to take into consideration a great many points which escape observation at first sight. Up to the present it has been the practice of the Admiralty to base their numbers on the Fleet of two years ahead. That has been due to the fact that the training of the seamen has to be carried through, and we have to contemplate what ships we shall have to man in two years' time. But unless we have an absolutely stable programme, and do not alter it in any particular, this procedure may lead sometimes to our having too many men, and we decided that it would be better to frame our numbers on the actual Fleet which we have to man for the year in question. This has enabled us to reduce our numbers this year. It may be that if the programme of new construction continues, the numbers to which we have reduced the personnel now will have to be increased. The hon. Member will realise that it is a matter of considerable difficulty to make the calculations which are necessary to ensure our always having the correct number of personnel for our ships at a given moment. There is also the larger question why we require these men when, as the hon. Member thinks, there is no possibility of war. That really does not affect the picture as far as the Admiralty are concerned. The hon. Member may make that charge against the Government or against our foreign policy, but the Admiralty have to see that the Navy have the numbers required at a particular time.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

It is quite a new doctrine that the Admiralty takes refuge behind the Foreign Office.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

I should have thought that it was obvious to almost anybody that the duty of the Admiralty primarily is to see that we have an efficient Navy, and the size of that Navy is decided by Parliament. Parliament having decided the size, our task is to see that it is well manned and up-to-date. That is the task of the Admiralty as I understand it, and I imagine that that is the general view.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

That is not what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman at all.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the number depended on our foreign policy.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

So it does, obviously. There is nothing in the least opposed in the two remarks that I have made, and I cannot see what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has to suggest to the contrary. The point is that we have to see that we have an adequate number of men for our purposes and not a man more, and that is what we are striving to do at the present time.

The next question which aroused most attention was that of the promotion of ex-mates. It is a very difficult problem and one which the Admiralty is keeping under consideration. Up to the present only two mates have been promoted to the rank of commander, one in December, 1926, and one in December last. I admit, and it is fair to say, that at first sight; this looks a very small number in proportion to the number of mates, but it must be explained that when the rank of mate was established in 1912, it was provided that, as far as possible, candidates should be selected who were not over the age of 25, though it was recognised that this age might be exceeded at first. In point of fact, however, most of those promoted were above 25 years of age, with the result that up to the present such of these officers who have attained sufficient seniority as lieut.-commanders to be considered for promotion to commander have been greatly handicapped by their being so much older than officers of the same seniority. In fact, in one of the two cases of these promotions the officer who was promoted was the most junior but one by seniority of those promoted and in the other case he was the most junior of all. Yet in both cases these promoted mates were appreciably above the normal age of promotion. Promotion to commander is by strict selection and in present conditions, a considerable percentage of officers who were entered in the normal way as cadets cannot expect promotion beyond the rank of lieut.-commander.

It is only to be expected, therefore, that a very small proportion of ex-mates, with the handicap of age and no early training as an officer, will be sufficiently outstanding to win promotion in competition with other officers. It may be argued, of course, that ex-mates have not been given a fair opportunity of showing what they can do. It is the case that a very few of them have specialised, but that is due almost entirely to their not having volunteered to the same extent as other officers, possibly under the mistaken idea that they would not be selected. Apart from specialisation, there is no ground for saying that the best appointments are not open to ex-mates. The future position, however, should be better. Among the officers who were promoted from mate to lieutenant in 1918 and later there is a bigger sprinkling of younger officers, and it is probable that, when the officers of these seniorities come into the running for promotion, a larger number of ex-mates will be found in the list of those selected.

For those promoted to mate in more recent years who will not, of course, come into the zone of seniority for promotion for some time, the position with regard to age is still better. In 1920 the whole system of promotion to mate was revised, with a view to bringing down as much as possible the ages at which promotion takes place, and in 1923 a further extension of the field of selection of mates was made by making ratings who had qualified for leading rate eligible, with the result that the maximum age of promotion to mate is now kept down to about 25, while promotion may take place at the age of 21. It must, however, be remembered that in any case the number of ex-mates on the lists is but a small proportion of the number of other officers, and even if the same percentage were promoted to commander, the number of promotions would still be small. I think that is a fairly obvious fact at the present time. The number of promotions of ex-mate (engineering) to engineer-commander has been nine. This greater number is due to the fact that the chances of promotion to the rank of commander in the engineering branch for engineer officers generally are much more favourable than is the case with executive officers.

As regards promotion to mate, the position is that practically all the ratings who are qualified and recommended and are found suitable for promotion are promoted. The whole question of the position of mates, which has been raised in the Debate to-night, is one which the Admiralty has constantly under consideration, and I can assure hon. Members that it is our intention in every way possible to help deserving men to get on in the Navy.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

Do I understand the hon. and gallant Member to say that all deserving men were promoted to mates, but that only eight were qualified and suitable out of the whole Navy in 1928? That was the number he gave me on 14th March, in answer to a question.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

What I said was that practically all the ratings who are qualified and recommended, and are found suitable for promotion, are promoted. A point of considerable interest was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull regarding the changes we have made in the naval staff. He alluded to me then as being cynical.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

No, that was about the mates. I said you had the First Lord's cynicism, but not his wit.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

I could not understand why the hon. and gallant Member said what he did. Anyhow, he alluded to my lack of wit in this or some other subject. I want to try to make the House understand that the changes which we have made in the constitution of the naval staff exactly carry out what I promised they should. The changes have not reduced the efficiency of the naval staff, but have reduced the personnel to a certain extent. The hon. and gallant Member lamented what he called the suppression of the trade division. To say that it has been suppressed is not accurate. We have transferred the duties which were done by that division to other divisions of the naval staff. The policy upon which we have acted has been to reduce the various divisions and sections, but to leave the staff in such a condition that, should it be necessary, it could be immediately expanded on the same lines as it was before. In other words, we have reduced the number of divisions but left them in a position in which they can be restored at a moment's notice should the occasion arise. We have not done away with the work which was done by these divisions. We have merely, for the time being, and I hope for all time, because no one wants war, brought them into a smaller compass.

Then the hon. and gallant Member lamented the fact that we had reduced the Board of Admiralty by one Sea Lord. He was very anxious that the Navy should be strongly represented on the Board, and that the naval members should have a large majority over the civilians. The Board of Admiralty has still a majority of naval members, and the member who will no longer be a member of the Board was a comparatively new addition. I do not think the hon. and gallant Member need fear that the interests of the Navy will not be amply looked after by the remaining members. Of course, the Assistant Chief of the Naval Staff, who carries out such important functions at the Admiralty on the staff will remain and will still be the Assistant of the Chief of the Naval Staff.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

Where does the saving come in?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

A small monetary saving is effected, but it is more a matter of principle, of cutting down from the top all through the branches of the Admiralty, and I think that it is a step in the right direction. If the hon. and gallant Member had had as close a connection with the work of cutting down the staff of the Admiralty as I have had he would realise that it is a very difficult and ungrateful task, and one that requires to be done systematically. The best way always is to begin at the top. There was another question which, I think, strictly speaking, hardly arises under this Vote, but I know the House is always interested in it, and that is the serious question of tuberculosis in the Navy. I propose now to say a few words on that matter.

Mr. SPEAKER

That question is not in order on this Vote.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

I bow to your ruling, Sir, but it is a matter which has been discussed largely during the Debate, and, therefore, I thought I might say three or four words about it.

Mr. SPEAKER

I intervened to point out that it was not in order when an attempt was first made to discuss it.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

It has been discussed since you left the Chair, I think.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

On that point of Order. May I put this consideration to you, Mr. Speaker? If the incidence of tuberculosis in the Navy is heavy, would not that create a wastage of men and lead to greater recruiting, and, without going into the medical side, would it not be possible to refer to the actual figures of the men lost to the Fleet through tuberculosis?

Mr. SPEAKER

That consideration might apply to a good many other things. It would not be in order to discuss it on this Vote.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Young) raised some questions with regard to engine-room artificers. I admit there is a great deal to be said on the points which he raised, and I will give them most serious consideration. I can assure the hon. Member that the letter to which he referred will be answered as soon as possible, and I am only sorry that it has not been answered before now.

Mr. R. YOUNG

Could the hon. and gallant Member say anything with regard to the necessity for the extra executive officers?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

I am afraid that at the moment I am not in a position to answer the hon. Member, but I will supply him with the information as soon as I possibly can. The same remark applies to the points raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gillingham (Sir G. Hohler). I will have them carefully considered. I think those are the main points raised in the course of the Debate.

Mr. AMMON

There was the point about the cadets, the point as to how you are recruiting cadets and whether you are exploring that question further.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

I am glad the hon. Member reminded me of that point. We are looking into this matter; obviously we have got to take into consideration the question of officers; when it comes to reducing the numbers of the Fleet we have to consider the question of

officers as well as of men, and we are considering all the points that he mentioned.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

I gather from what the hon. and gallant Member has said that he himself is dissatisfied with the mates' scheme. As he knows, in a democratic age this is a question which assumes very great importance. The general feeling is that these men are not getting their proper chance or proper experience. All that is required of the Admiralty is an assurance that a proper inquiry will be held into this matter, because we cannot afford to discourage the grant of commissions to men who rise from the lower deck. I raised this matter on the Motion "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," and I do not desire to take up the time of the House with it again, but I would ask the hon. and gallant Member if he could see his way clear to give an undertaking that this matter will be inquired into, particularly and foremost with a view to abolishing the very name of "mate," which creates an invidious distinction.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

I am not in a position to say that we will have an inquiry. I do not know what the hon. Member means. Is it some special inquiry?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

An inquiry such as was held into marriage allowance for officers, for instance, and certain other things.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

I can assure the hon. Member that this is a matter to which we shall give, and are giving, our most serious attention, though what the result of that consideration will be I do not know.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES

My hon. and gallant Friend is aware that the House is anxious to hear something about tuberculosis, and he is undoubtedly anxious to give some information. Would he see that that point is raised on Vote 3?

Question put, "That '99,800' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 182; Noes, 80.

Division No. 270.]	AYES.	[6.30 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.	Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Albery, Irving James	Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)	Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Applin, Colonel R. V. K.	Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Raine, Sir Walter
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)	Harland, A.	Ramsden, E.
Berry, Sir George	Harrison, G. J. C.	Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Bethel, A.	Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.	Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Betterton, Henry B.	Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxfd, Henley)	Richardson. Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ti'y)
Blundell, F. N.	Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.	Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)	Ropner, Major L.
Braithwaite, Major A. N.	Hills, Major John Waller	Ross, R. D.
Brassey, Sir Leonard	Hilton, Cecil	Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Salmon, Major I.
Briggs, J. Harold	Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.	Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard	Sandeman, N. Stewart
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)	Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)	Sanderson, Sir Frank
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)	Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)	Sandon, Lord
Buckingham, Sir H.	Hopkins, J. W. W.	Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Burman, J. B.	Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)	Savery, S. S.
Campbell, E. T.	Hore-Belisha, Leslie	Shaw, Lt.-Col. A.D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)	Hume. Sir G. H.	Shepperson, E. W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)	Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer	Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Chapman, Sir S.	Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Christie, J. A.	Iveagh, Countess of	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Clayton, G. C.	James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert	Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Kindersley, Major G. M.	Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Kinloch Cooke, Sir Clement	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Cockerill Brig.-General Sir George	Knox. Sir Alfred	Storry-Deans, R.
Colfox, Major wm. Phillips	Lamb, J. Q.	Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Cope, Major Sir William	Little. Dr. E. Graham	Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Couper, J. B.	Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.	Looker, Herbert William	Templeton, W. P.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)	Lougher, Sir Lewie	Thompson. Luke (Sunderland)
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Lucas-Tooth. Sir Hugh Vere	Thomson, Sir Frederick
Dalkeith, Earl of	Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Tinne, J. A.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)	MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Davies, Dr. Vernon	McLean, Major A.	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Eden, Captain Anthony	MacRobert, Alexander M.	Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel	Waddington, R.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)	Making. Brigadier-General E.	Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Elliot, Major Walter E.	Margesson. Captain D.	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
England, Colonel A.	Marriott, Sir J. A. R.	Warrender, Sir Victor
Erskine. Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)	Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)	Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Fermoy, Lord	Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)	Watts, Sir Thomas
Fielden, E. B.	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)	Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Forrest, W.	Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Fraser, Captain Ian	Murchison, Sir Kenneth	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony	Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Ganzoni, Sir John	Nelson, Sir Frank	Withers, John James
Glyn, Major R. G. C.	Neville, Sir Reginald J.	Wolmer, Viscount
Gower, Sir Robert	Newton. Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)	Womersley, W. J.
Grant. Sir J. A.	Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsfld.)	Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)	Nield. Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert	Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Grotrian, H. Brent	Oakley, T.	Wright, Brig.-General W. D.
Hacking, Douglas H.	Percy. Lord Eustace (Hastings)	Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)
Hammersley, S. S.	Pitcher, G.
Hanbury, C.	Pownall, Sir Assheton	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
		Captain Bowyer and Mr. Penny.
NOES.
Adamson W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Edge, Sir William	Lowth, T.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	MacLaren, Andrew
Ammon, Charles George	Gillett, George M.	MacNeill-Weir, L.
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)	March, S.
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)	Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Montague, Frederick
Barnes, A.	Griffith, F. Kingsley	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Barr, J.	Grundy, T. W.	Murnin, H.
Beckett. John (Gateshead)	Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)	Naylor, T. E.
Bellamy, A.	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Oliver, George Harold
Benn, Wedgwood	Hamilton. Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)	Owen, Major G.
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)	Hardie, George D.	Palin, John Henry
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Harris, Percy A.	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Broad, F. A.	Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Potts, John S.
Cape. Thomas	Hirst, G. H.	Purceil, A. A.
Clarke, A. B.	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Cluse, W. S.	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Scrymgeour, E.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)	Kelly, W. T.	Shield, G. W.
Crawfurd, H. E.	Kennedy, T.	Short, Alfred (Wednesday)
Davies. Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)	Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.	Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Day, Harry	Lawrence, Susan	Snell, Harry
Duncan, C.	Livingstone, A. M.	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Dunnico, H.	Longbottom, A. W.	Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Sullivan, J.	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)	Wiggins, William Martin
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)	Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Thurtle, Ernest	Williams, David (Swansea, East)	Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.
Townend, A. E.	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Third Resolution read a Second time.

Ordered, That the Resolutions which upon the 12th day of March were reported from the Committee of Supply and which were then agreed to by the House be now read: That a number of Air Forces not exceeding 32,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at Homo and Abroad, exclusive of those serving in India (other than Aden), during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930. That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 150,500, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions (other than Aden), during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930. Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide, during Twelve Months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army and Air Force; and that Secretary Sir Laming Worthington-Evans, Mr. Bridgeman, Secretary Sir Samuel Hoare, Mr. Duff Cooper, Lieut.-Colonel Headlam and Sir Philip Sassoon do prepare and bring it in.