§ Motion made, and Question proposed,
§ "That 99,095 Officers, Seamen, Boys, and Royal Marines be employed for the Sea Service, together with 8 S for the Royal Marine Police, borne on the books of His 'Majesty's Ships, at the Royal Marine Divisions, and at Royal Air Force Establishments, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937."
§ 10.21 p.m.
§ Mr. AMMONMight I ask you, Sir Charles, for the guidance of the Committee, whether you will allow a rather wide Debate on Vote A on the understanding, of course, that there would be no repetition in the case of the other Votes?
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMANYes, as long as there is not too much detail introduced which would properly relate to other Votes.
§ Mr. AMMONI beg to move,
That 95,095 Officers, Seamen, Boys, and Royal Marines be employed for the said Service.The House must have been intrigued, in the discussion which took place earlier, by the fact that, while a conference is now sitting to consider ways and means of peace, the whole line of the discussion has been as though we were on the verge of war and preparing to be plunged into it immediately. In view of what has been said about the Navy as an obsolete weapon, we have had an astonishing amount of evidence from all quarters as to the efficiency of and the need for this arm of our national defence. It is interesting to note that, while the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) endeavoured to make our flesh creep by outdoing the Prime Minister in indicating the state of decadence into which the Royal Navy had fallen, the right lion. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) expressly 162 dissociated himself from any such idea, and admitted that the British Navy was stronger and more efficient than any other navy in the world.I am moving to reduce the Vote in order to get answers to one or two specific questions. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) was First Lord of the Admiralty, he brought to the House proposals, which were carried, for reducing the number of personnel, and the effect was that, over a period of about three years, there was a reduction of 8,648 and a saving of something like £3,000,000. That was based primarily on a reduction in the number and size of the ships, in accordance with the agreements reached at the London Naval Conference. One may ask what has happened since then to afford grounds for the present increase in the strength of the Navy. It was then definitely shown that the Navy was overmanned, particularly in regard to the shore establishments. There are hardly any more ships now, and a considerable number are going into dock for refit and reinstatement, which will take several years, so that it is difficult to see on what ground the Admiralty can base the claim which they now put forward for an increase which will bring us back practically to the numbers of 1928. That rather gives the impression that, so far from this increase being necessary, the Government have made up their mind to try to intimidate the nation. Once again we have a right to ask why is the House not to receive any information as to what is taking place at the Naval Conference. The Noble Lord made a most astonishing answer to my right hon. Friend, who said that at the Conference of 1930 a White Paper was issued indicating, as far as was possible, the business of the Conference and asked why that could not be done now. The Noble Lord replied that they could not issue a White Paper because they were afraid that the Conference would break up.
Lord STANLEYThe negotiations were all confidential. The only things that we could have published would have been reports of confidential negotiations, and I believe the publication of those reports would have done definite damage.
§ Mr. AMMONIs not the House entitled to know at least what is the policy of our own Government and what proposals they are putting before the Conference? We are not asking them to divulge anything that happened with regard to other nations, but at least we have a right to know what proposals this Government is making. We are being asked to sign a blank cheque. No one knows to what we are being committed. It seems that, under cover of an alleged Naval Conference and a so-called endeavour to bring about what is called collective security, the nation is to be committed to a race in naval armaments of which we do not know the possible extent. Surely that is something that we have a right to press, and I press it again. The whole thing is being used as a cloak for an endeavour to push forward further armaments. If it is to be simply an excuse for that, we had better give up the whole thing and say it is an absolute failure and come out fairly and squarely with the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Paddington that we are arming against the world and have no concern whatever with regard to other nations. The Government have got into a state of panic, and are trying to rattle the nation into a state of panic, with regard to the armaments position as with the problem of unemployment. It is a most expensive and unsatisfactory attempt to endeavour to deal with the problem of unemployment on lines of armament manufacture and to try at the same time to tell the people that it is necessary to arm for security. It shows that all the talk that we have had about endeavouring to find ways and means of agreement by peaceful negotiation is so much eyewash and it is being made an excuse on every hand to encourage further armaments.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping said with regard to expenditure at Singapore that it was not aimed at Japan. All we were concerned with was looking after affairs in the Indian Ocean. I ask the question, as I draw attention to the speech of the hon. and 164 gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes), against whom can you be arming in the Indian Ocean if not Japan? No other nation is concerned there except our own Dominions. The hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth was a little more candid about it. He made it expressly clear that it was Japan upon whom we had our eyes. The late Lord Beatty was in the Admiralty in 1924 when it was my task to oppose the Singapore scheme. He asked me to look at the map and called my attention to the fact that I had suggested that it was an unfriendly action towards Japan. He pointed out that the distance from Japan to Singapore was as far as the distance from New York to Plymouth, and therefore asked how could it be suggested that that was any threat against Japan? When I suggested that it was as far the other way he dismissed the suggestion by saying something uncomplimentary about politicians.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping said that there must be parity with the United States. This seems to be extraordinary at a time when, in order to give full security, we should apportion out the work we have to do to keep the peace of the world. He went on to condemn the 10,000-ton cruisers. Whilst admitting that that standard was set up by the United States, surely you are simply following the line of parity in that particular direction. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping is a good forgetter. He always fails to remember the most inconvenient things. Somewhere about 1930 there was a little perturbation in this House when attention was called to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had read from a secret despatch sent by the Prime Minister indicating the opinion of the Committee of Imperial Defence with regard to the discussions going on in Washington. Hon. Members who were in the House at the time will remember that there was a good deal of concern about fast despatch being quoted. One of the principal items in the despatch was t suggestion that discussion should cease after the question of capital ships an l aircraft carriers had been considered, aid not the question of cruisers. If there is any complaint in regard to the cruiser position, it cannot 165 be laid at the door of my right hon. Friend.
It has been brought out most effectively in all the discussions that, whatever may he said with regard to the conditions of the Navy, the age of certain ships and the strength of certain arms, it indicates that the British Navy is stronger, more efficient and better manned than any other Navy in the world. So little do the Government think of these weapons being obsolete, that actually on page 356 of the Estimates there are enormous sums of money set down to be spent on refitting and re-equipping them. Refitting of the "Malaya" is to cost £976,963. On the "Warspite" a sum of £2,114,214 is to be spent, although the original cost of the ship was only £2,524,148. The money to be spent on "Revenge" is £279,100 and on "Royal Oak" £998,669. On "Renown" the cost is not yet available but up to now the cost has been £720,252. On "Repulse," which cost originally £2,829,087, we are to spend £1,474,924. The comment on these figures is that it is obvious that if these ships are so obsolescent and so useless the Government stand indicted very strongly for a tremendous waste of public money in this respect. We should like a little more information with regard to that expenditure.
I should like to put a few questions with regard to the Estimates. In his opening speech the Parliamentary Secretary made reference to the fact that on all the capital ships there will be provision made for carrying aircraft.
§ Lord STANLEY indicated assent.
§ Mr. AMMONMay I ask whether this Vote for personnel includes the crews for the aircraft, or are the machines to be manned by naval ratings? Will the Noble Lord give an answer to the question of my right hon. Friend as to why there is such a marked difference in the cost of construction between the 7,000 tons and the 5,000 tons cruiser? The difference is extraordinary. We should also like an answer with regard to the educational facilities at Dartmouth. With respect to the question of oil fuel, some 166 doubt has been raised in the Debate whether it is worth while that we should be committed to the great expense that arises in the production of oil fuel from coal. The argument is that up to now it has not proved economic to produce oil from coal, but there are considerations other than the actual cost of the production of the oil. Something like £800,000 of expenditure goes in storage in various parts of the world in order that the necessary fuel may be there for the Navy. There is also the tremendous strategic advantage if you have a full supply of naval fuel in your own country, as we had in the days when our ships were all fired by coal. Is it not worth while to pursue the experiments, even if they cost something. It helps the coal industry as well as serving the strategical advantage of the country to develop oil from coal for supplies for the Navy.
The Noble Lord gave us to-night what he called the credentials of those who form the Board of Admiralty. I was rather amazed to hear him make this statement, and rather intrigued as to the reason for it. Is it that the Government are trying to hide behind their expert advisers for the policy they are pursuing? Any question of policy must be determined by the Government; they have full responsibility. I demur considerably from the suggestion of bringing in expert and professional advisers. The Government must stand on their own feet; and at the moment their foundations are pretty insecure. They are speaking with two voices. Whilst anxious to indicate that they are pursuing a. policy of peace, their whole policy with regard to armaments is on the most jingoistic lines ever seen in this House. We have asked again and again against whom we are arming, but have got no answer. We cannot get the extent of the programme of the Government. All we know is that we are being committed to an expenditure and recruitment which take us back to the peak days of expenditure and personnel before the War.
We get no information as to what is taking place at the Naval Conference, although there are alarmist rumours appearing in the Press and at home which receive neither denial nor confirmation, and yet we are asked to vote blindfolded 167 considerable mans of money and approve these large increases in our armed forces.
§ 10.44 p.m.
Viscountess ASTORI am sorry to take up the time of the Committee at this late hour, but as representing a naval constituency, it is almost one's duty to speak on naval affairs. While the Navy is one of the most, romantic and interesting of Services, it is somewhat tragic that naval Debates in this House are about the dullest in the world. The hon. Member opposite has certainly covered a, wide range in his speech. He said that the Government had rattled the country on the question of armaments and then went on to say that they had failed to deal with unemployment.
Viscountess ASTORI was wondering whether you had noticed it. I am astounded that the hon. Member should say that the Government's policy is a jingo policy, that the Government do not want peace but want to arm against the whole world. He said the Government are standing on rocky foundations. Let him persuade the country that he is right, and then the Government will not, be standing here at all, but will be blown to smithereens, because if the country thinks that any Government is leading it into war, that Government will be turned out at once. The reason the country returned the National Government—
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMANI think the hon. Lady is not now following the example of the hon. Member to whom she referred.
Viscountess ASTORI have sat here all day and heard hon. Members opposite talking as though the naval policy of the Government would lead the country into war, and it seems to me that hon. Members opposite know perfectly well that one of the reasons the country returned the National Government was that it was certain that if there were a Labour Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Navy!"]—This is the Navy I am talking about. I think the country was deeply grateful to the Prime Minister for the warning he gave concerning the situation of our defence forces. That is why the National Government was returned.
168 The hon. Member who preceded me spoke about the Naval Conference. He said he wanted to know what is going on and asked why there is not open diplomacy. I get bored by hearing people talk about that. You would not be able to get anything done if the whole world knew what you were going to do. The Labour party know that very well, for there is no open diplomacy in that party. One half of the Labour party does not know what the other half is doing. I think it is unfair to ask the Government to tell more than they have about the Naval Conference. I think the House ought to be deeply grateful that both France and Italy have stayed in the Naval Conference at this moment, but the hon. Member has forgotten that Japan left the conference. He asked why we are arming, but he knows perfectly well, when he talks of collective security, that if there is any collective security to-day it is because we have the British Fleet in the Mediterranean. Everybody knows that well enough.
There are certain things one ought not to say, but there arc certain things one is bound to say. I listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander). I know that in his heart he is a big Navy man, and if he belonged to a party like ours he would do marvellous things. Naturally he has to be very careful with such a mixed lot behind him. I think he has done remarkably well to do as he has done. Half of those behind him want to turn the other cheek and the other half do not know which way to turn, but are dazzled and dazed. I cannot understand why hon. Members opposite are upset, for this tremendous programme of which they speak amounts to only two new cruisers and two new battleships. I do not intend to go into the merits of battleships. I hear too many people talking about things of which they know nothing.
Viscountess ASTORI would not dare to discuss this had it not been for the points made by the hon. Member who preceded me. I am merely answering his points. I have many things I want to say, but I am not going any further than he did. With regard to battleships, ail I would say is that while the House and 169 the country may be doubtful about some things, nobody in his heart begrudges the country a good strong Navy. They ask who are our enemies? They talk about Japan. Nobody is going to fight Japan, but if Japan attacks our possessions we have to be ready to meet them. I do not like people talking about hostilities. Although I represent a naval port I fought for the League of Nations when it was very unpopular. I still believe that peace is the most important thing in the world. Look at the world. We may be peaceful, but I believe that the peace of the world depends on our strength. But you do want to build up to your Treaty rights. I think the Washington Conference was a great success, and that the London Pact was a great success. All treaties are when they are kept. But no countries keep treaties when the time comes that they think it better to give them up.
Mr. ALEXANDERThat is why your Government broke their pledge at Stresa. They promised to keep a united front, and walked straight back and made an agreement with Germany.
Viscountess ASTORThe right hon. Gentleman knows well that his Government never kept a single pledge. He talks about crises. He does not know a crisis when he sees it. We had a crisis in 1929, and he did not even know we had one. It is bad from the foreign point of view to say that the Government are out to fight the rest of the world. It is a wrong thing to say, and nobody in their heart believes it. Collective peace depends on the strength of England. I go further. I believe that world peace is going to depend on the British Empire and the United States keeping the seas free. I was delighted to hear what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), who is not my ideal of a peace dove, had to say. It is true that this is expensive, but the things that are most worth while are expensive. It will not be half as expensive to the country when the rest of the world knows that our Navy is fit as it would be if the world thought that we were going down. Everybody knows that we have led the world in disarmament, but the world has not disarmed. We hope to go on leading it, but I rejoice that the Government are in a position to keep the Navy as we ought to keep it.
170 To get back to the Vote. I congratulate the Government on having put a certain amount of work in the Royal Dockyards. I am certain that the Labour party, who believe in national ownership, will urge the Government to go on putting work in the Royal Dockyards. They must. They do not want the work to go into private yards and the money into the pockets of private enterprise. They want the Government to give more work to the dockyards. [HON. MEMBERS: "They could have done so."] They could have done so, I have no doubt, but pressure from the Labour party and the Clyde members was put on them to give some of it elsewhere. May I remind the Government that there is said to be a shortage of mechanics, fitters, boilermakers, coppersmiths, smiths, and patternmakers. We have in Plymouth unemployment even among those classes and it is interesting to know that we have 14 per cent. of unemployed insured men in Plymouth, whereas in some of the industrial areas it is only five per cent. or six per cent. If the Government are not going to give more work to Plymouth they ought to see whether they could not transfer some of these skilled men to other parts of the country. We know that there is a shortage in some of the shipbuilding areas and I ask them to consider that suggestion. I do not ask anything unreasonable. The Government ought to remember that these dockyard towns and particularly Plymouth, are dependent on the Navy. In other industrial areas where there is shipbuilding there is also some other industry but the case of Plymouth is different. There are in Plymouth 7,200 grown up men unemployed and they ought to get consideration.
I am very sorry that in the Estimates there is no provision for marriage allowances in the Navy. The other day I noticed to my horror that even Territorial officers at the age of 21 were to get marriage allowances whereas we have been pressing for years without success for marriage allowances in the Navy. I hope, now that we have two young alert men at the Admiralty, who will have sympathy with the young married officers, something will be done. There are so many old men in the Admiralty who forget the case of the young married officer, but I hope that the two young men who have done so remarkably well to-day and 171 put their case so clearly will press the desirability of marriage allowances for officers in the Navy on the Admiralty and the Government. As I say, I feel strongly, that in the cause of peace, we ought to have a strong Navy. I would not say so unless I meant it. I believe we ought to keep our Navy as fit as possible because the whole world will be safer when the British Navy is as strong as it can reasonably be made.
§ 10.58 p.m.
§ Mr. COCKSAs in previous years, I wish to raise the subject of promotions from the lower deck. Many years ago the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), who was then First Lord of the Admiralty and whose mind ranges above narrow departmental considerations — perhaps that is the reason why he is still below the Gangway—stated that the Navy was a great national service and that its higher ranks should be open more widely to the people of the country as a whole. He introduced the mate scheme whereby commissions were open to the seamen's branch of the lower deck, and later that scheme was extended to the engineering branch and the Royal Marines. Then we had another First Lord, Mr. Walter Long, as he then was, who stated in 1920 that many admirable officers had been produced in this manner from the lower deck. Dealing with the age problem he stated that officers promoted from the lower deck would be on precisely the same footing with other officers and that the higher ranks would be within their reach. Later, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) became First Lord and set up the Larkin Committee, the result of which was that the rank of mate was abolished and members of the lower deck could be promoted to officers and given the same training as cadets.
In 1931—I would like to ask the Committee to note this fact—that scheme began very well. Seventeen commissions were awarded in 1931 from the lower deck—12 in the executive branch, four in the engineering branch and one in the Royal Marines. Since that time the number of promotions from the lower deck has gone steadily down year by year. I have raised this matter year after year but there has been no improvement. Last year, instead of 172 there being 17 promotions as in 1931, there were only seven men promoted from the lower deck—three to the executive branch, three to the engineering branch and one to the Royal Marines. That is the lowest number in the whole history of promotions from the lower deck. It is not because the personnel of the Navy has decreased, nor because the number of officers has decreased. During that same period the number of cadets entered from Dartmouth increased by one-third and the number under the special entry scheme increased by three times. Nor is it beer use the officers that have been promoted have been found to be unsuitable. Of the officers in the first class promoted under the new regulations in 1933 one was second in the examinations held at Greenwich and another obtained the highest marks in gunnery and won the annual gold medal. In March last year the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, in reply to a question from me, gave the number of certificates obtained by the second class of officers. He stated that the regulations laid down for promotion were designed to enable such officers to compete with ex-cadets on equal terms. All these years the number of promotions from the lower deck has been decreasing and I would like to ask whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to allow the scheme to die out altogether or whether they intend to give more facilities for promotion from the lower deck to commissioned rank.
Now let me take the fate of those officers after being promoted. Between December, 1928, and June, 1933, every half year there was on the average one promoted to lieutenant-commander, and four engineer lieutenant-commanders. Since June, 1933, only one lieutenant-commander who has risen from the lower deck has been promoted to commander and in the last half-year only two engineer commanders were promoted in that way. Let me come to the higher ranks. Mr. Walter Long said the highest ranks in the Navy should be open to men promoted from the lower deck. We know that in the Navy in the old days many admirals of renown came—I think the expression was—through the hawse pipe. Under this scheme only two have been promoted to captain on the executive side. Although 65 officers on the 173 engineering side who joined as artificers have been promoted commander no engineer captain has been promoted from the list of engineer commanders who joined as artificers. Does the Admiralty intend to promote any of these engineer commanders to the higher rank of captain, or does it intend to allow promotion to higher rank to die out?
Another point I wish to raise is in connection with the Fleet Air Arm. In that arm there has been a large increase of pilots and observers, and no doubt there will be a larger increase as the arm extends. The Royal Air Force allows noncommissioned officers and petty officers to serve with the Fleet Air Arm, but the Navy does not allow petty officers and ratings to serve in that way. I understand that in the Navy they have introduced the pseudo-rank of observer for men who actually do the work of observers but are not allowed to qualify for commissions. In the Royal Air Force there are actually men serving with the Fleet in connection with aircraft carriers and so on, whereas the non-commissioned officers in the Navy are denied the same opportunity of becoming observers and obtaining commissions. That is an anomaly which should be altered. It is hard on the men in the Navy that they should not have the same opportunity as men in the Royal Air Force who are actually serving with them in the Fleet.
The final point I want to raise is with regard to the engineering side of the Navy. On previous occasions the plea I am making for recognition of the engineering side has been supported by two Members who are no longer with us —Lieut.-Commander Marsden, who has ceased to become a Member of the House through the exigencies of political affairs, and the late Sir John Pybus, who was put on the retired list by the Lord High Admiral of the Universe. We have advocated that the engineering side of the Navy, to which the Service owes so much, should be given further recognition in the higher branches of the Service. We have advocated over and over again that an engineering officer should be included in the Board of Admiralty, and that the position of Admiral Superintendent of the dockyard is one eminently suitable for an engineering Rear-Admiral to fill. The Financial Secretary said two years ago that the Admiralty would give serious 174 consideration to this plea, and admitted that the engineering branch deserved recognition. I hope that the Admiralty will consider that matter again in order that the engineering branch may be given the recognition which its great services to the Navy demand.
§ 11.9 p.m.
§ Mr. RALPH BEAUMONTIt is difficult to compare the Navy Estimates of this year with those of previous years because on this occasion there is no provision for a programme of new construction. It will, therefore, be impossible to get a proper view of naval policy, development and expenditure until the Supplementary Estimates dealing with the current year's programme are presented to the House, as no doubt they will he at a, later date. But although they do not tell the whole story, I think the Navy Estimates do give solid ground for satisfaction on the part of those of us who have for several years viewed with misgiving the slowing down of construction and the steady reduction of personnel. And it is with relief that we see that this policy is changed, that there is to be a speeding up of the construction already authorised in previous years, that there is to be steady progress with the refitting and modernising of our capital ships and, perhaps, especially that there is to be an increase in the personnel of the Fleet.
The reduction in personnel that went on year after year was bound to impair the efficiency of the Fleet for a considerable period, and owing to the length of time it takes to make a trained seaman it was obvious that even when this process was reversed it would be some time before the leeway was made up. It is, therefore, very gratifying to see that this process has been reversed and that during the last year or so the numbers have shown a slight increase, and that in these Estimates there is a further increase of about 4,000 or 5,000 men. But there is the further reason why one welcomes this increase in personnel. There is no doubt that in recent years the shortage of men in the Navy has militated not only against the efficiency of the Service but also against the interests of the men themselves, and hon. Members who represent naval constituencies and who come into contact with naval ratings must have become fully aware of this 175 fact. For some time there have not been sufficient men to allow drafting, reliefs and other normal changes to take place without seriously upsetting the balance which it is most important to maintain between sea and shore service and between home and foreign service.
The shortage of personnel has meant that there has not been a sufficient surplus available for these purposes, and the result has been that the men of the Navy have not always had their fair share of home service or of shore service. The increase in personnel must therefore be welcomed, because it will ease this state of affairs and help to restore the balance to the advantage of the men. It is to be hoped that the Admiralty will watch this position carefully in the future, and that whatever the duties and the commitments of the Fleet may be, the interests and the welfare of the men will not be jeopardised as they have been in recent years.
These Estimates also give cause for optimism so far as the Royal Dockyards are concerned. We shall await with interest the publication of the programme of new construction and while it is only natural that much of this work should go to the distressed areas, it is also to be hoped that the claims of the Royal Dockyards will not be overlooked. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) mentioned Plymouth, but I would like to point out to my hon. Friend who is going to reply, that, whereas Plymouth and Chatham were each granted a cruiser last year, Portsmouth was not allotted one. At present we are fairly well employed on the construction of an earlier cruiser and with other work, but a year or two hence we may feel the lack of a cruiser of the 1935 programme on the stocks. I sincerely hope that when the construction programme is announced we shall at any rate get back to what has been for several years our normal allocation of one cruiser a year.
But, so far as these Estimates go, the outlook for the Royal Dockyards during the coming year is quite good. During the lean years not only was there a slowing down of construction but there was also some holding up of repair work. The result has been a steady accumulation of this work. The dockyards have been extremely busy during the past year, and 176 look like continuing to be busy in the immediate future on work of this description. Several of these large repairs and refits are now in hand, and others are projected. This programme of modernisation is a very great boon to the dockyards, as this type of work provides the steadiest and most general employment to all trades in the yards.
There is one matter in connection with the dockyards which I should like to mention, and that is the question of establishment. The prospects of the dockyards are quite good, employment has been very much better than during the last two years, and luring the next 12 months the dockyards are likely to be fully employed. In each of the last two or three years there has been an increase in the number of hired men, and there is provision in these Estimates for a slightly increased number. While there has been this increase in the n Amber of hired men, the number of established men has steadily decreased, and is continuing to do so. It cannot be otherwise, under the present regulation, whereby only one man is established for every four vacancies. And unless the one-in-one rule is adopted it can only be a question of time before pensionable establishment in the dockyards dies out altogether. After the War, the established list was a very large one, quite out of proportion to post-war needs, and it was therefore necessary to reduce the number drastically. That process is still taking place, but the time seems to have arrived when it should be stopped, owing to the prospect of more stable conditions of employment in the future.
I believe the majority of hon. Members will welcome these Naval Estimates as a stage in the Government's policy of naval development. It is a great relief to know that the policy of cutting down the Navy has now been changed and that the process of making good our deficiencies is taking place. One hopes sincerely that the efforts of the Government to bring about an agreement to take the place of the Washington Treaty will meet with success, as it would certainly go far to limit expenditure. The making up of our deficiency is in no way inconsistent with our efforts to arrive at such an agreement, and whatever may be the outcome of tree present discussions, the size and strength of our Fleet should always be based on the necessity of safe- 177 guarding our vital interests all over the world.
§ 11.19 p.m.
§ Sir ROBERT YOUNGI rise for the purpose of bringing before the Committee a very great and genuine grievance. The Vote deals with the number of men required to man the Royal Navy. I desire to call attention to the position, qualifications and status of some of those men; I refer to the engineers of the Royal Navy. I trust I shall be able also to reach the ears of the Service Members of the Navy in this House. There is an old saying, "Out of sight, out of mind," and that is applicable to these men. Since Commander Bellairs left the House, no naval officer or ex-naval officer, as far as I know, has been able to find time to keep the service interests of these men before the House and before the Admiralty. Perhaps that is because they have not been engineers; he, I understand, was an engineer-commander, and therefore understood and appreciated their conditions of service.
Since 1868, when the class of engine-room artificer was first established in the Royal Navy, the Navy has undergone vast changes in design, construction, engine-room equipment, and manning. In one sense the Navy is no longer composed of ships, but of intricate mechanical engines floating on the surface of the sea. The officer on the bridge, great as are his qualifications as a sailor and his responsibilities and powers as an officer, is, after all, of little consequence to prevent irretrievable disaster if the men in the engine-room are not fully skilled and free from feelings of discontent and resentment at their service conditions and at their lowered and depressed status as compared with others less skilled and with less length of service and fewer educational qualifications.
From 1868 to 1925 the engine-room artificers, who are the mechanical engineers of the Navy, were rated as chief petty officers on entry. During that period their suitability was never called in question; in fact, their loyalty and their practical efficiency never ceased to receive praise from responsible officials. But in 1925 their status of chief petty officer was lowered to that of petty officer, by someone who, under the guise of economy or for some other reason, forgot the attributes of skilled experience 178 and made them inferior in rank to men of less skill and less length of service—indeed, to men who had served no apprenticeship in the engineering workshops of the country and no engine-room artificer's apprenticeship in any of the Admiralty training establishments. The results of this have been to keep the best class of men in our workshops from joining the Navy, to create anomalies in that Service, and to give these men the feeling that they were not well treated in the conditions in which they were placed. Besides that, the Admiralty reduced the standards of efficiency for new engineering entrants from the workshops outside. In my opinion, the status and service conditions of engineers in the Navy should be such that the best men employed in the Mercantile Marine of our country would feel it no indignity if they were suddenly called upon to serve as engine-room artificers in time of war.
What have been the conditions of these men since 1925? The regulation of 1925 placed them in a position of inferiority, gradually diminishing their enthusiasm for and contentment in their sphere of service and causing them to feel that they are subject to an unfair and unjust and undeserved policy of oppression. I therefore trust that some of the things I am going to say will fall on the ears of the new Defence Minister. From 1925 all who entered the naval service, whether from the Admiralty mechanical training establishments or from the workshops of the country, are relegated to the rating of petty officer. I understand that a fourth class engine-room artificer may be, and indeed has been, called on in the absence of the engineer officer and the chief engine-room artificer on destroyers and other small vessels to take complete charge, even to taking the ship to sea, with all the staff working under his direction. Surely it is reasonable to ask that men liable to assume such serious responsibilities should be rated as chief petty officers, as they originally were. What I have said shows their qualifications.
Now let me point out how unfair and unjust is the position in which they are placed. Was this reduced status brought about because some of the men who were brought in from the engineering workshops were trade unionists? This superimposing of semi-skilled men who were not trade unionists on skilled 179 men who were seems rather surprising to my mind. I have been in the House since 1918 with the exception of the last Parliament and with all my contact with all the First Lords, I have not yet been able to get it out of my mind that this reduced status is as much due to political bias as to the need for economy. Further let me explain the unfortunate and unfair position in which they are placed. A fourth class engine room artificer with a watch-keeping certificate in the engine room or boiler room may be lower in rank to a stoker petty officer on watch there, although the stoker petty officer is not a fully skilled man in the true sense of the word and, worse than that, the watch keeping engineer has a certificate. The stoker petty officer has no certificate and yet he may be superior to the engine room artificer who has a certificate.
§ Lieut.-Commander AGNEWOn the other hand, a stoker petty officer has a certificate to get that he is competent to take charge of a stokehold at sea.
§ Sir R. YOUNGI am pointing out that a watch-keeping engine-room artificer may be in the engine room or boiler room lower than a stoker petty officer who has not taken a watch-keeping certificate. It does not seem to be right, but it is the fact. Things are not all ship-shape in the British Navy because of the absurd and always foolish position, that an engine-room artificer is the responsible watch-keeper and yet is unable to issue orders, as hon. Gentlemen will know, because an inferior cannot give orders to his ordained superior. He is unable to issue orders even if his technical knowledge reveals to him that defects are likely to arise through the actions of the stoker petty officer. I do not hesitate to say that that is the kind of thing you get through having Admirals, who are sailors but are not interested in, and know nothing about, the engine room. If I were First Lord of the Admiralty, I should be inclined to criticise them severely for encouraging this semi-skilled labour in the engine room of the ships of the British Navy. One would imagine that people interested in these questions would know something about them, but I wish to refer the Noble Lord to some correspondence in the "Daily Mail" last Tuesday, 10th 180 March, in which Lieut.-Colonel J. M. Tuke, Director of Naval Recruiting, wrote saying that the constant need of the Navy was for skilled ratings. I thoroughly agree with him, but he went on to say that the conditions of service are very attractive, for they rank as chief petty officers immediately on joining; there is no working up to be done as in other trades. I suggest that what Lieut.-Colonel Tuke wrote in relation to the status of these men is altogether wrong. Perhaps he is perusing the regulations and has only got as far as 1925, since which time, as I have pointed out, their status has been reduced.
I propose to go further in my indictment on this matter. I should like the Noble Lord, and the Civil Lord, to take special note of the fact that, in addition to what I have said, a stoker petty officer, who may have sat for the stoker mechanician examination and have failed, is still reckoned superior to a fourth class engine-room artificer owing to length of service in petty officer rank, although the engine-mom artificer has had to pass a much more exacting examination for the post he holds. I wonder what the Noble Lord thinks of that? I do not think that he can justify a situation of that kind. That is not all. There is the further injustice, that a stoker mechanician with three years' service as such may sit for the examination for warrant rank, while an engine-room artificer, who is a skilled man, must wait six years for that privilege. I feel strongly disposed to write to the general secretary of my trade union recommending him to advertise in our journal, which circulates in this country and in the Dominions and Colonies, warning engineers against joining the Royal Navy under such conditions.
I go further in showing how this preference for less skilled men rather than skilled men works. It is impossible for an engine room artificer, unless specially promoted, to reach the rating of chief engine room artificer, until well on into the second period of his service. That means that he will have approximately 15 years' engine room experience, plus five or seven years apprenticeship before he can reach the position of chief engine room artificer, whereas the stoker mechanician, the man who serves no apprenticeship in an engineering workshop and no apprenticeship in the 181 Admiralty training shops, can reach his position within the first period of his service, which means shorter length of service and less experience. Again, I ask, is that fair in the interests of the Navy itself? The anomaly exists that the man who has been to all intents and purposes a stoker labourer to the engine room artificer may be serving as stoker mechanician and counted as senior in rank to his former engine room artificer who has now become a chief engine room artificer. I ask the Noble Lord to realise that inferior workmanship may mean a very expensive luxury for the Royal Navy in time of war. I ask that a better professional status should be given to the engineers of the Royal Navy, equal to that which obtained before 1925; without it you will not secure the best standard of recruits from the workshops throughout the country, and you will not give sufficient encouragement to the engineering apprentices who have been trained in the Admiralty mechanical establishments. Those engineering apprentices are largely recruited from our secondary and public schools.
I do not expect the Noble Lord to be able to give me an answer to my request to-night, but I sincerely trust that he will press upon the First Lord of the Admiralty to take this matter into serious consideration. I have every reason to know of the lower standard now set for engineering recruits for the Navy. Men get in with 40 per cent. of passes whereas at one time the standard was considerably higher. It arises from the fact that the best skilled men in the workshops will not enter the Navy under these conditions. It is essential that these things should be remedied not only in the interests of the men in the engine room, but in the interests of the Navy as a whole, as an integral part of our organised system of safety and defence. These engine room men are labouring under a sense of injustice. They have a reduced status, they work as juniors of men who have served no apprenticeship; a shorter time is needed for the unskilled man than for the skilled man to get warrant rank, and the unskilled man actually becomes senior to the man who is a chief engine room artificer. What I have said relates to a great and a very genuine grievance. Many of the men who join the Navy have been trained in 182 outside workshops as members of the trade union of which I was formerly general secretary, and I can assure him that there is considerable dissatisfaction.
§ 11.40 p.m.
§ Mr. PETHERICKI do not propose to follow the hon. Member in his powerful plea for engine room officers and men. The speech which appealed most to me was the short speech of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) for increased facilities for promotion from the lower deck. The hon. Member has the sea in his blood and no doubt he is thinking of the facilities for promotion in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when Sir Cloudesley Shovel started from the bottom and became one of the foremost admirals who ever sailed the seas. I want to bring forward what may be regarded as a minor matter, but which is yet of some importance. We are voting an increased amount of money for the Navy and we must be careful that every penny is spent to the best possible purpose. We ought to be quite sure that the accountancy system in the Navy is thoroughly adequate and up to date. Paymaster officers are recruited in the same way as other officers, they have to take the ordinary examination and after a term as cadets go to sea for a year in the "Frobisher" for a course of seamanship and gunnery, in the same way as other naval cadets. After that they become paymaster midshipmen and go through the usual ranks. But I have reason to believe that the accountancy system in the Navy is somewhat archaic. Most naval officers with whom I have spoken agree that it is clumsy, entails a great deal of unnecessary expenditure and sometimes unnecessary staff. During the War outside interests were brought in, ordinary chartered accountants, who gave advice as to how the accounts should be taken. I hold no brief for chartered accountants. My only interest is that the accounts of the Navy should be properly kept. In business life it is necessary to have accounts kept on an up-to-date system for auditing purposes. In the case of one firm of which I am a director the accountancy was somewhat archaic and we called in a firm of chartered accountants who proposed certain improvements and changes in the system.
183 I suggest to my right hon. Friend who is going to reply that the Admiralty should at the present time call in eminent members of the accountancy profession from outside. I believe some of them would be prepared to give their services for nothing at, this time of national emergency; at any rate, I think the Admiralty might at least ask them to do so. I suggest that an outside committee be formed to advise the Admiralty as to whether its methods of accountancy and of training paymaster officers, whose duty it is to keep the accounts of the Navy, are adequate or not. It might very well be that such a committee would be able to make some admirable suggestions which would simplify the accounts of the Navy and be of considerable benefit. This is a small point, but I hope my right hon. Friend will go into it, and not, simply say that what is, is, and that the present system is admirable and works so excellently that there is no necessity to do anything.
§ Lieut.-Commander AGNEWMight I ask the hon. Member whether, as a complementary suggestion, he would agree that the services of some of the naval accountant officers should be loaned to civil life in order to show merchant houses how to keep their accounts?
§ Mr. PETHERICKI am not a merchant, but if I were, I should always be prepared to take advice, whether from naval officers or anybody else.
§ 11.47 p.m.
§ Mr. STEPHENI have listened to these Debates on national defence with great interest. That which surprises me is the way in which hon. Gentlemen in this House contemplate this greatly increased expenditure with such equanimity. Hon. Members are evidently quite confident that somehow or other all these additional millions of pounds can be found without any difficulty, whereas when anyone suggests the need for the expenditure of so many millions for the improvement of the conditions of the people, we are told that the money is not there and cannot be found, that it is quite impossible, that everybody would like to see great improvements in social conditions carried out, but that 184 the money is not there. Now it appears that all these hundreds of millions of pounds can be found for expenditure upon instruments of death. That strikes me as being a very strong position.
I venture to suggest to the House that, while it may be very necessary for those who think in a, certain way to provide these instruments of destruction, the first line of defence is the provision of strong and healthy men and women. I believe that unless the Government are prepared to take steps to provide such conditions in this country as will give us an A.1 population, all this expenditure upon armaments will very largely be wasteful and extravagant.
§ Sir PATRICK HANNONIs the hon. Gentleman aware that we are spending on the social services of this country in the creation of the type of population that he has in mind, more money than any other community under the sun?
§ Mr. STEPHENI do not think the interruption of the hon. Member is very relevant to the argument I have been putting forward. I think that it might be shown that over the years since the close of the last War this country has spent a greater total sum on armaments than any other country. I would be quite willing to give way to any hon. Member who wants to tell me about the other countries. I am told that Russia spends much more, and I am very doubtful about the figures of the hon. Liberal Member behind me. I think that he is far too liberal in his estimate of the expenditure of Russia on her armaments. But it remains a fact that your human material is your first line of defence, and if your human material is not Al material, you are going to find yourselves in difficult circumstances. That is one point which I want to put before the Committee in connection with this matter.
Another point which interests me in connection with these Debates is that in the House of Commons we have got hon. and gallant Admirals, Commanders, Colonels, Majors and Captains, and I have never noticed in the list any reference to private soldiers. If there are privates in this House I am not aware of it.
§ Sir P. HANNONWe are all privates.
§ Mr. STEPHENThat may be a very noble sentiment, coming from the hon. 185 Member. I wonder why it is that petty officers and ordinary seamen in the Navy do not seem to have the same opportunity of coming into this House as the Admirals and the Commanders. I would like the Noble Lord when he replies to this Debate to tell me what is the exact position of the officers of the Navy who are also Members of Parliament and whether the lower deck in the Navy has the same privilege as those hon. Gentlemen who have come into this House from the Navy. I would like to point this out. It is a very interesting thing to me that of all the speeches that have been made in this Debate it was a civilian Member, an ex-military officer who was evidently regarded by most hon. Members of this House as the individual who had the most important contribution to make with regard to the Navy Estimates. The right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) seemed to be the one to whom Members looked for very wise words to-day in the difficult circumstances in which the country finds itself at the present time. I would like the Noble Lord to consider whether it would not be possible to make it more easy for ordinary seamen and petty officers to have the opportunity of coming into Parliament, and of taking part in these Debates in connection with national defence.
On the Army Estimates, I raised the question of Army officers being entitled to become candidates for county councils. [HON. MEMBERS: "Retired officers."] According to what was said in a previous Debate it appeared that they were active officers. I know it is said that these people have retired from the service. I do not know very much about the conditions which apply to them but I notice that many of them continue to carry their naval and military titles when they enter the House of Commons. If they have retired, I do not see why they should continue to bear these naval and military titles. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or clerical titles"?] It does not apply to me. As a practising barrister, I would say that it does not help business to use these titles. It suggests to solicitors and clients that one is not in active practice and does not help the coming of briefs.
§ Sir RONALD ROSSWill the hon. Member take my assurance that it is just the same with the title of "major"?
§ Mr. STEPHENI am very glad to find that there is one sensible ex-officer in the House. Another suggestion which I make to the Noble Lord is that something should be done to enable the ordinary seamen and the men who work in the engine-room to get into communication with trade union officials so that they could join their appropriate trade unions. I raised this question last week and the Secretary of State for War told me that he did not think it would be desirable to do so. I would remind the Committee that in the Unemployment Act certain privileges are given to unemployed people who are members of their appropriate trade unions. I think that men in the Services ought to have their rights under that Act secured and those rights can only be secured for them if they are members of their trade unions. There ought to be far better opportunities than exist now for petty officers and seamen and the people in the engine-room to get into the unions. There ought also to be on every ship a council of the workpeople employed on that ship.
I would ask the Noble Lord to consider taking steps for setting up in every ship a sailors' council. Some hon. Members say "Soviet." Why they should desire to use a Russian word rather than an English word I do not know. If hon. Members knew the history of their own country they would know that such councils go far back in the history of the country. I am seriously putting forward to the Noble Lord a proposition that he should consider the institution of sailors' councils in every one of His Majesty's ships. The duties that would belong to these councils would be very various. They would be an appropriate instrument by which the people in the ship, who have a very considerable responsibility in connection with the successful running of the ship, would have an opportunity of putting their grievances before the officers in command of the ship. A great deal might be done in this way. The councils would have the opportunity of making representations with regard to the food supplied and with regard to the general conditions of the sailors in the ship. I believe that the institution of sailors' councils in every one of the ships in the Navy would mean a great step forward in making the Navy really effective as an instrument for the protection 187 of the people of this country. Hon. Members will note that I say "for the protection of the people of this country." It is quite true, and I do not want to hide the fact, that it may not be so efficient in the protection of private property, in the protection of the present economic structure, but I am quite confident that sailors' councils if they were set up in each of the ships would help to make those ships much more effective for the defence of the people. The people are being called upon to provide this great expenditure, and presumably it is for the protection of the great masses in the country and not for the protection of private property.
§ Major PROCTERMay I ask if these councils before they could fire a shot would have to pass a resolution?
§ Mr. STEPHENIt would appear that there will have to be a Resolution passed in this House before the money can be provided for firing the shots. That is what we are busy with to-night. I do not know why the hon. and gallant Member should get so alarmed about the passing of a Resolution in a ship. It would be very often for the advantage of all concerned. Perhaps there would not be so many mistakes. Having listened to so many discussions in this House I should have more confidence if the lower deck had more say than they have at present and that would be the case if these councils were established. I am putting this proposition forward hoping that the Noble Lord will consider it and that the sailors in the Navy will take it up and will press for it as their right. If they had these councils, they could send their grievances to the officer of a ship, and if satisfaction was not obtained, to the Admiralty, and, if necessary, from the Admiralty to the Floor of the House. It is by the creation of such machinery that we shall be able to get the armed forces of this country into position which will enable them to become a real protection for the people and not merely an instrument for the protection of British capitalism.
§ 12.7 a.m.
§ Mr. WATSONI cannot allow the Debate to close without trying to elicit some information as to what the Government intend to do with Rosyth Dockyard. I do not see in the Estimates any proposal 188 that additional men will be employed at that dockyard. In the recent Debate on defence attention was drawn to the fact that the southern dockyards are vulnerable to attack and that few of them are safe from either sea or air attacks. It was pointed out that it was necessary to consider the establishment of dockyards in some other parts of the country where they would be safer. I hope that the Minister of Defence, whom I am pleased to see present, will give this matter some attention. These estimates show a substantial increase and the taxpayers will insist upon economies being effected as much as possible. If we are to be called upon to spend an additional £10,000,000 a year on the Navy, and if more is to be asked for the defence programme, the taxpayer may well begin to wonder when it will cease. If there is to he any question of new dockyards, I hope that Rosyth, which was reduced to a care and maintenance basis in 1925, will have first consideration. In a few weeks or months it could be put into use and it would be the most secure dockyard we could have, safe from attack from air and sea. I hope that Rosyth dockyard will receive consideration from the Admiralty in connection with any extension of the Navy.
The Minister of Defence should also take note of the fact that before long he may have to consider establishing munition factories in various parts of the country. I suggest that he should find out from the Admiralty or his colleagues in the Government whether it is intended to use Rosyth again as a dockyard, because there are buildings there which could be, and ought to be, used for national purposes, and that before there is any question of erecting new factories in some other part of the country the fullest use should be made of the buildings already in the possession of the Government. I hope that in a few years from now we shall not have to complain of the waste of having built new factories and erected a lot of unnecessary plant. I feel that I should not have done my duty to my constituency if I had not drawn the attention of the representatives of the Admiralty, who have the first responsibility—the Minister of Defence may come into it later—for the condition in which Rosyth Dockyard is being kept.
I hope other Members with Government establishments in their con- 189 stituencies will take note of the fact that since 1925 there has been a considerable number of unemployed in the Rosyth area. We have never got rid of the unemployment, problem there since the dockyard was reduced to a care and maintenance basis, and evidently we are to be perpetually burdened with the unemployment created by the reduction of the dockyard to that status. The Admiralty have a responsibility in the matter, and I hope the matter will receive careful consideration from them. I could have said much more, only the hour is late, but I hope I have said enough to convince the representatives of the Admiralty that at Rosyth there is a dockyard ready to be used almost at any time, and that if the question of safer dockyards is brought up it will have their first consideration.
§ 12.13 a.m.
Lord STANLEYI am sure that at this late hour the Committee will not wish me to deal with those speeches or parts of speeches which might more properly have been made earlier in the Debate or during the two days' Debate on Defence. I will confine myself therefore to the particular questions which have been addressed to me since we have been in Committee. I hope that I misunderstood the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) when I gathered that he was suggesting that we were hiding behind the naval members of the Board. It is perfectly ridiculous to take that view. The only point I wanted to make was that those members of the Board had not spent the whole of their service in battleships, but had a great deal of experience of all branches of the Service, and that therefore their advice would be more varied and valuable than that given by people who had served all their time in one class of ship.
As to the first question put to me earlier in the day by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), I know that he put a scheme of that kind into operation, but he got the benefit of it and we did not. With smaller programmes and a diminishing Vote, there is always a certain number of supernumeraries which can be used for bridging the gap for any essential service. When you have a Vote A which is right down to rock-bottom, on a slightly increased programme, you have great difficulty 190 in finding the necessary number of men.
Mr. ALEXANDERIt is a question of economical management. The Admiralty would have kept the supernumeraries then, if we had not insisted upon their being cleared out.
Lord STANLEYIt is to that action that we owe the extreme difficulties of the present time. The other scheme the right hon. Gentleman had put into operation was for decreased complements as the result of decreasing activities which is found to be unworkable. Replying to the hon. Member for North Camberwell the "Warspite" is the only ship among those he mentioned to receive this particularly expensive treatment and that is only because she will have to continue in service for so long before the time comes when she can be replaced. The crews for aircraft carried in battleships and new construction are borne on this Vote although the pay of these men is found under Vote 4. The right hon. Gentleman asked the difference of price per ton for various classes of shipbuilding. The specific question was, why was there such a large difference between the "Arethusa" of 5,000 tons and one of the 7,000-ton "Leander" class? I can give the hon. Member figures which, although approximate, are sufficiently accurate to answer his question. The "Arethusa," of 5,200 tons, built in a Royal Dockyard, cost £250 per ton. The "Amphion," of 7,000 tons, cost £214 per ton. The "Newcastle," of 9,000 tons, cost £207 per ton. It looks very much as though the rate per ton depends upon the tonnage of the ships and that it comes down in a fairly steep ratio. I shall be interested myself in looking into the details, and if I find there is any other reason I shall be very glad to let the hon. Gentleman know.
The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks), as usual, has raised the question of promotion from the lower deck, in which subject he takes a great deal of interest. The Admiralty very much regret the falling off in the numbers, and it is certainly not our wish that this scheme should come to an end. We want to do everything we can to encourage it. Fully qualified and recommended men are not coming forward; all those who have done so are selected for promotion. What the reasons are I really cannot tell. I will go into the matter to see whether any- 191 thing that we can do will encourage them. The Admiralty are most anxious to see this scheme made a complete success. I hope that in years to come we shall see these officers reaching the higher ranks. The other points which have been raised are mostly points of detail, and I am sure that hon. Members will not object if I answer them by letter.
To all those who have spoken about the dockyards I would say that we not only realise their responsibilities to their constituents, but also the Admiralty's responsibilities towards the dockyards. The question of the number of established men is now being gone into by my hon. Friend the Civil Lord. I would, in conclusion, say a word about one particular dockyard, namely, Rosyth. I am sure hon. Members have not expected that I should be in a position to make any statement about Rosyth to-night, but obviously we have always in view the possiblity of using Rosyth in the future,
§ and, if the occasion should arise, obviously the claims of Rosyth will be among the first to be considered. Indeed, in view of the fact that the Civil Lord is a Scottish Member, it would not be surprising if they were considered slightly out of their order.
§ Mr. STEPHENAm I to understand that the Parliamentary Secretary will consult the First Lord on the matter of the constitution of sailors' councils such as I have suggested?
§ Question put, "That 95,095 Officers, Seamen, Boys and Royal Marines be employed for the said Service."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 75; Noes, 191.
193| Division No. 101.] | AYES. | [12.24 a.m. |
| Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) | Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. |
| Adamson, W. M. | Hardie, G. D. | Potts, J. |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) | Henderson, A. (Klngswlntord) | Pritt, D. N. |
| Ammon, C. G. | Hollins, A. | Ritson, J. |
| Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) | Hopkin, D. | Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens) |
| Banfield, J. W. | Jagger, J. | Rowson, G. |
| Barnes, A. J. | Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) | Sexton, T. M. |
| Barr, J. | John, W. | Silverman, S. S. |
| Benson, G. | Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. | Simpson, F. B. |
| Bevan, A. | Kelly, W. T. | Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe) |
| Broad, F. A. | Kirby, B. V. | Smith, E. (Stoke) |
| Burke, W. A. | Lawson, J. J. | Smith, T. (Normanton) |
| Cocks, F. S. | Leonard, W. | Scrensen, R. W. |
| Daggar, G. | Logan, D. G. | Stephen, C. |
| Day, H. | Macdonald, G. (Ince) | Stewart. W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng) |
| Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) | McEntee, V. La T. | Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.) |
| Ede, J. C. | McGhee, H. G. | Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) |
| Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.) | McGovern, J. | Tinker, J. J. |
| Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) | MacLaren, A. | Watson, W. McL. |
| Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. | Maclean, N. | Williams, T. (Don Valley) |
| Frankel, D. | Marklew, E. | Wilson. C. H. (Attercliffe) |
| Gardner, B. W. | Marshall, F. | Woods, G. S. (Finsbury) |
| Garro-Jones, G. M. | Maxton, J. | Young, Sir R. (Newton) |
| Green, W. H. (Deptford) | Milner, Major J. | |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. | Oliver, G. H. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) | Paling, W. | Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. | Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W. | Critchley, A. |
| Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. | Briscoe, Capt. R. G. | Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page |
| Allen, U.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh) | Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham) | Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. |
| Anderson Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.) | Bull, B. B. | Croom-Johnson, R. P. |
| Anstruther-Gray, W. J. | Burghley, Lord | Cross, R. H. |
| Apsley, Lord | Cartland, J. R. H. | Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C. |
| Aske, Sir R. W. | Carver, Major W. H. | Davies, C. (Montgomery) |
| Assheton, R. | Cary, R. A. | Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil) |
| Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton) | Castlereagh, Viscount | De Chair, S. S. |
| Baldwin-Webb, Col. J. | Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) | Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. |
| Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) | Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham) | Dodd, J. S. |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Channon, H. | Drewe, C. |
| Baxter, A. Beverley | Coltox, Major W. p. | Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop) |
| Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) | Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J. | Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) |
| Blinded, Sir J. | Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) | Dugdale, Major T. L. |
| Bottom, A. C. | Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh.W.) | Duggan, H. J. |
| Bower, Comdr. R. T. | Courtauld, Major J. S. | Duncan, J. A. L. |
| Dunne, P. R. R. | Leckie, J. A. | Reid, W. Allan (Derby) |
| Eastwood, J. F. | Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L. | Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) |
| Eckersley, P. T. | Levy, T. | Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) |
| Emery, J. F. | Liddall, W. S. | Ropner, Colonel L. |
| Emrys-Evans, P. V. | Lindsay, K. M. | Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry) |
| Errington, E. | Liwellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J. | Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) |
| Erskine Hill, A. G. | Lloyd, G. W. | Rothschild, J. A. de |
| Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) | Loftus, P. C. | Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen) |
| Everard, W. L. | Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) | Salmon, Sir I. |
| Fleming, E. L. | McCorquodale, M. S. | Sandys, E. D. |
| Foot, D. M. | MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) | Scott, Lord William |
| Fox, Sir G. W. G. | Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight) | Seely, Sir H. M. |
| Fraser, Capt. Sir I. | McKle, J. H. | Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree) |
| Fremantle, Sir F. E. | Maclay, Hon. J. P. | Shute, Colonel Sir J. J. |
| Furness, S. N. | Maklns, Brig.-Gen. E. | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. |
| Fyfe, D. P. M. | Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's) |
| George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Markham, S. F. | Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen) |
| Goodman, Col. A. W. | Maxwell, S. A. | Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe) |
| Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral) | Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. | Southby, Comdr. A. R. J. |
| Greene, W. p. C. (Worcester) | Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) | Spens, W. P. |
| Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J. | Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde) |
| Gridley, Sir A. B. | Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) | Strauss, H. G. (Norwich) |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) | Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester) | Strickland, Captain W. F. |
| Gritten, W. G. Howard | Mulrhead, Lt.-Col. A. J. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N.W.) | Munro, P. | Sutcliffe, H. |
| Gunston, Capt. D. W. | Nail, Sir J. | Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.) |
| Hanbury, Sir C. | Nicolson, Hon. H. G. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
| Hannah, I. C. | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. | Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford) |
| Hannon, Sir p. J. H. | Orr-Ewing, I. L. | Thomson, Sir J. D. W. |
| Harbord, A. | Palmer, G. E. H. | Tree, A. R. L. F. |
| Harris, Sir P. A. | Patrick, C. M. | Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C. |
| Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) | Peat, C. U. | Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L. |
| Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. | Penny, Sir G. | Turton, R. H. |
| Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- | Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E. | Wakefield, W. W. |
| Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) | Peters, Dr. S. J. | Walker-Smith, Sir J. |
| Holdsworth, H. | Petherick, M. | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) |
| Holmes, J. S. | Plckthorn, K. W. M. | Ward, Irene (Wallsend) |
| Hulbert, N. J. | Plugge, L. F. | Warrender, Sir V. |
| Hunter, T. | Ponsonby, Col. C. E. | Waterhouse, Captain C. |
| Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H. | Porritt, R. W. | White, H. Graham |
| Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Procter, Major H. A. | Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.) |
| Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose) | Radford, E. A. | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) | Ramsbotham, H. | Wise, A. R. |
| Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R. | Rankin, R. | Wragg, H. |
| Kimball, L. | Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmln) | |
| Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Rayner, Major R. H. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Latham, Sir P. | Reed, A. C. (Exeter) | Dr. Morris-Jones and Captain |
| Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.) | Reid, Sir D. D. (Down) | Arthur Hope. |
First Six Resolutions agreed to.