SUPPLY (Hansard, 18 February 1947)

§ Mr. D. Marshall
When I was interrupted I was almost at the end of my speech. I trust that the Admiralty will do all in their power to keep a close association with the Merchant Navy.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre (New Forest and Christchurch)
I wish to call attention to Vote 8, Section II, Item K. I should very much like to know from the Financial Secretary whether the claims for oil repayments are included in this item and to which countries they refer. Why are these countries now claiming? In other words, it seems curious at this time that we should be called upon to pay for such things as oil which was, presumably, given to us for use in the common war effort. A second question is: What is this item "Waiver of claims against certain Allies." Surely, again, all expenditure was a contribution to the common war effort. Is it not rather late 1016 in the day for us to be faced with having to repay, or to waive claims, against certain of our Allies? Surely the time has come when these claims should no longer be considered by His Majesty's Government, but should be honoured as expenditure in the common cause of winning the war. A third point is the item "Indian Defence Expenditure Plan." Of all the countries in the world, none benefited more than India from joint defence, and no country can owe us more at the present day. To find 18 months after the end of the war that the original estimate for 1946–47 of £1 million has now gone up to £1,650,000 seems a travesty of justice. I hope that the Financial Secretary will at least tell us that no further expenditure will be called for under this heading.
There is one other point. arising under Vote 13, B, "Retired Pay". The Financial Secretary knows that very considerable grievance is felt by many in the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines at the slowness with which the increased pensions are becoming payable. We welcome that increase, but we regret that it is so small. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to assure us that it will be very much larger in the full Naval Estimates, so that further delay in obtaining the correct scale of pension will be obviated.

§ Mr. Willis (Edinburgh, North)
I want to raise two questions in connection with the extra sums asked for pay and for naval stores. I find it difficult to understand why we should be asked for an additional £6 million in respect of wages and salaries, while we are being told that there is a terrible shortage of manpower in the Navy. We are told that the Fleet exercises are jeopardised by reason of the fact that they have not the men. I should have thought that if the Admiralty were rather too optimistic in estimating the extent to which they could reduce Naval forces, that would have been offset by the fact that now they have not sufficient men to meet their present needs. It seems to me that today there are far too many chief petty officers and petty officers. Could not my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary consider some means of reducing the numbers, which would help to reduce this charge, and bring about a better balance as between seamen, leading ranks, petty officers, and chief petty 1017 officers? This matter is causing considerable concern, since it means that the prospects of promotion are seriously diminished.
With regard to the amount required for Naval storage, this seems to be rather difficult to reconcile with the fact that the Admiralty have found that their commitments now are much greater than they estimated at the beginning of the year. Surely, that ought to mean that the requirements of storage should be less, and not greater. If the supplies are still being used at sea and in depôts, dockyard establishments, and so on, there should be less storage space required. I cannot understand how this additional charge for storage has arisen, unless it is because the Admiralty are storing quite a lot of stuff that is rapidly becoming obsolescent. I think we ought to have some assurance about that. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that the matter ought to be considered, because it is not reconcilable with the fact that there is a large Fleet afloat at the present time and that there are more dockyards and shore establishments in being, than it was originally estimated there would he. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us something about the nature of the stores? Is he satisfied that many of the stores being held are not becoming rapidly obsolescent and should be handed over, in a much more wholesale manner than has been done in the past, to the Ministry of Supply for disposal?

Mr. McKie (Galloway)
I wish to join in the protests that have been made about the way in which the Parliamentary Secretary introduced this Debate, or, should I say, the way in which he failed completely to present the Supplementary Estimate to the Committee. In the long years I have been privileged to be a Member of the House, I do not think I have ever on any occasion heard a Minister, whether senior or junior, come to the Committee and merely sit back and allow hon. Members opposite to open the discussion on a Supplementary Estimate. As the Debate has proceeded, it has become clearly evident that there are many points about which many hon. Members, particularly on the Opposition Benches, are very much concerned. If the Parliamentary Secretary had been able to say something about some of the subheads in opening the Debate, he might have saved 1018 himself a good many questions. I would like, in passing, to say that we had a somewhat similar exhibition last week, when the Supplementary Estimate for the Ministry of Civil Aviation was presented, on which occasion the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation did say something, but in such a perfunctory and cursory manner, that the Debate lasted very much longer than would otherwise have been the case.
There are one or two questions I wish to put. The first concerns subhead E of Vote I, the increase of £300,000 in the Women's Royal Naval Service. I do not object to any increase—far from it—but I would like to have a little information about what it is proposed to do with this further sum of money. Every hon. Member loudly applauds what the Women's Royal Naval Service did during the war and recognises the great work they performed, and wants to see that Service go on in time of peace. I am sure there will be a response from the Government side of the Committee to what I say, because all of us have constituents who have served in that new, but nevertheless great, branch of the Royal Navy. I am sure that even the hon. Lady who represents accidentally the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) will agree with me when I say that.

§ Mrs. Braddock (Liverpool. Exchange)
Accidentally?

Mr. McKie
It would be out of Order for me to tell the hon. Lady what I mean by "accidental," but she had the great good fortune to win a seat that one would not have expected to see represented by a Socialist Member. I would like again to emphasise the great work which the Women's Royal Naval Service did during the war, particularly in harbour work, where they performed their duties magnificently.
With regard to Subhead A of Vote I, which was dealt with by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor), who has given the whole of his life to the Senior Service. Nobody on this side of the Committee grudges the additional £3 million for the wages of officers and men. but I would like to know something about what it means. To use the words of my hon. and gallant Friend. I hope it means 1019 that our present administrators at the Admiralty are keeping the Royal Navy up to the position in which we all want to see it. On Vote II, subhead M—Naval clothing, soap and tobacco, and allowances in lieu—one hon. Member who is not now present tried to make a political point about a question that had been addressed to the Parliamentary Secretary concerning this subhead, the innuendo being that hon. Members on this side wished to see the tobacco and soap and allowances in lieu cut down. I am sure that the hon. Member's attempt will fail, as in justice it deserves to fail. The only reason anybody wishes to ask a question about soap, tobacco and allowances in lieu is to make sure that the men are getting enough.

§ Major Cecil Poole (Lichfield)
I think it will be within the recollection of the Committee that my hon. Friend made the point that privileged tobacco and cigarettes should not be allowed to men on shore establishments. He referred to the position in Gibraltar. His point was that privileged tobacco should not be allowed to men on shore establishments.

§ Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite
I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me. I asked what was the situation at present. During the war, duty-free tobacco was available only to shore establishments if there was a barbed wire fence, and sentries outside, and so on. I was simply asking whether that position still existed, and putting the question on this subhead, which covers tobacco. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must not impute sinister motives to one who wishes to serve these men.

§ Major Poole
I apologise if I misunderstood the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I could not understand the reason for asking whether the practice was being continued unless it was either with the desire to continue it or else to reduce it. If I have done the hon. and gallant Gentleman an injustice, I apologise.

Mr. McKie
By way of reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield (Major Poole), I will say that I did not so understand my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite). I should like to know how much is paid in allowances in lieu of tobacco.
1020 No one has yet asked for information about Vote 6. I should like some information about Subhead O: Miscellaneous Expenses of Research Establishments and Laboratories, and of Scientific Research.

§ The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont)
We cannot discuss Vote 6. because there there is a decrease.

Mr. McKie
I should like a little additional information about Vote 8, which causes an increase, and which has been touched upon by a number of hon. Members, particularly the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce). If he had read the Vote a little more closely, he would have seen that by far the bulk of the sum asked for, nearly £4 million, goes on wages, either in dockyards at home, or in naval yards abroad. Does this mean that the Royal Navy are being kept in the properly fighting fit condition which we all wish to see?
I would like to reinforce what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chertsey (Captain Marsden) said about Vote 11, Subhead U—Indian Defence Expenditure Plan. The original Estimate was for £1 million, and the increase is £650,000. Why is there such a large increase, more than half the original estimate, at a time like this, when the future of India is not being prepared for in the way in which we on this side of the Committee would like to see? I hope the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary when he replies will do something to atone for his very serious sins of omission.

§ Mr. J. Langford-Holt (Shrewsbury)
When my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) began his speech, he congratulated the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary on being within 8 per cent. of his original Estimate last year. I think that probably those congratulations were a little premature., My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chertsey (Captain Marsden) pointed out that that was by no means the case. I wish to ask a question on Vote 4. This question arises on all these Estimates, but I would direct particular attention to Vote 4, A—Salaries and Allowances—in which there is an increase of about 40 to 41 per cent. over the original Estimate, and under "Wages" we have an increase of over 50 per cent. Could the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the services rendered have increased by 1021 that 40 or 50 per cent., or whether in fact the wages have increased by 40 or 50 per cent.? I should like this question cleared up, because it applies not only to Vote 4, but to practically every other Vote.

§ Sir William Darling (Edinburgh, South)
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) has spoken, because there is an idea that Scottish Members are not interested in naval matters. That is quite a misconception. Our fame as a martial race is not exceeded on land, air or sea. I welcome the opportunity to take part in this discussion. I am particularly interested in Vote 5 dealing with Educational Services, in which there is an increase of £50,000 in connection with the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, under the heading of "Salaries, Wages and Contingencies." I am interested to know whether under "contingencies," which is a very wide and embracing term, there is any allowance of an educational character for Scotland, or if we are to understand that those who aspire to such educational services as the Royal Naval College provides proceed to Dartmouth for that purpose? Are there any educational establishments, other than the Royal Naval College, covered by "contingencies"? At an earlier stage it was ruled that one must not discuss a decrease, but I should like to refer to Vote 6 dealing with research establishments and laboratories. I take it I cannot discuss that, but I can make the comment that it seems regrettable that there is an amount—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The hon. Member cannot even make that comment.

§ Sir W. Darling
If I were anxious to pit my insignificant ingenuity against your power and authority, Mr. Beaumont, I would merely read the Vote, but I am not going to do that.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
That. also, would be out of Order.

§ Sir W. Darling
I proceed on to safer ground, to Vote 8. Section 1 refers to personnel in dockyards at home and to work in His Majesty's dockyards. There is a substantial increase of some £4,250,000. I am curious to know and the Scottish public will be interested to know, what considerable proportion, if any, is being spent in the Scottish area. It is a noteable 1022 fact that when peace is with us, the Navy Estimates principally bear on the South East of England—Portsmouth, Plymouth, Chatham and Dover. Those are the great names in naval history, but when war descends upon us—and this has been true of many wars—the names are Clyde and the Forth, Rosyth and Scapa Flow. It is worth considering whether a considerable expenditure in peacetime diverted in that direction, would not be strategically and economically a wiser policy than that which has been followed in Vote 8.
In Vote 10 I notice there 'is a decrease marked and I must not mention that. Vote 11 brings me to my last point. In the kind of business I follow, a petty and unimportant business, we are particular about the postage and stamp book. Hon. Members will be familiar with that kind of introduction to commercial life and what is usually the first job that a junior has to follow. I direct attention to item D—"Telegrams, telephones and postage." The Navy is a very great Service, and here they are asking for an increase of no less than £250,000 on their estimated expenditure for telegrams, telephones and postage, an increase which will bring the amount spent on those items in His Majesty's Navy, irrespective of their own equipment, to £10,000 a week. I think that is the figure; the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong. The sum is no less than £520,000. I think the public should know that, on telegrams, telephoning and postage, this fantastic sum of £10,000 is spent every week—£2,000 a day if one leaves out Saturday and Sunday, on which naval men in offices do not do very much work.
If I were responsible for the accounts of His Majesty's Navy, that is a figure at which I would look closely. I would want to know how it is possible that a Service which has its own signalling equipment, its own intercommunication apparatus, through the far-spread Fleet, and its own wireless communications on the vast scale which accompanies a worldwide naval service, and which has the right to send communications "On His Majesty's Service" without payment, yet manages, under this majestic Administration, to spend £10,000 per week on telegrams, telephones and postage. It requires a little explanation, which I shall await with eagerness.

§ Sir Ralph Glyn (Abingdon)
I desire to ask the Parliamentary and Financial 1023 Secretary a few questions. Vote 3 deals with medical services. Can the Committee be informed what progress is being made by the Committee appointed by the three Services to see what amalgamations can take place in hospital accommodation, because considerable saving might result? It would probably lead to greater comfort and attention for the men, and would certainly be an improvement in medical services. The other point I want to ask concerns Vote 11, in which there is an item for "Lodging Allowances, &c., to officers, &c., of His Majesty's Ships." The Committee should realise that the present allowances to officers, when they are sent to places like Bath, and leave their own home and family, are extremely inadequate. It puts a severe burden on officers and others who are sent to these out-stations. The majority of them have homes to support, and from personal contacts with them, I know that they find it very difficult to live in London, because the amount of the allowances is very small. That allowance is paid in order to enable the officer to make both ends meet. It should not be made almost impossible for them to live on their pay. The cost to a naval officer of living ashore is infinitely greater, under modern conditions, than the cost if he were serving on one of His Majesty's ships. I should be grateful for information on that subject.
The Committee would be interested to know how much longer Bath is to be retained. A large number of officers and men are there, and there is constant travelling between Bath and London, which is inconvenient, and bad for administration. I should have thought that before this Estimate was presented, some explanation would have been given of why that wartime arrangement is being continued. Finally, I think that the Committee might have some reason given for the scanty so-called "explanation" which appears on page 6. It has always been the custom, when a Supplementary Estimate has been presented, that the explanation should be fairly full. That was certainly the case with other Supplementary Estimates we have had, but in this, there is little explanation, and it is due to the Committee, that we should hear a little more. I hope that the Admiralty will be able to assure the Committee on some 1024 details which are not contained in the printed matter on page 6.

Vice-Admiral Taylor
I wish to ask a question on Vote 13. I see that under the heading "Retired Pay" there is an increase of £130,000. Is the sum now to be spent sufficient to give to all officers, who have retired under the provisions of the Royal Warrant of 1919, pensions bringing them up to the basic rate laid down in that Warrant? It will be remembered that in 1935 these pensions were stabilised at a figure nine and a half per cent. below the basic rate, and they have not yet been made up to that rate. These officers have a real grievance in this matter, and undoubtedly it is a breach of faith on the part of the Government that the provisions of the Royal Warrant of 1919 have not been carried out.

§ The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale)
I am sorry if it was considered that I should have risen to speak first. I should have thought that the Committee would have had too much of me by the time I had finished answering these questions. I admit that I must take some time in answering them, as is only right and proper. I will try to take them in Order. The hon. and gallant Members for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) and Chertsey (Captain Marsden) both raised the question of the R.N.R. and the R.N.V.R., and asked whether the figures were contained in Vote 1. They are not contained in this Vote at present. The sum being spent on these two Services is certainly small, but that is not to say that we do not want to encourage, in every possible way, the growth of these two Services. We hope that they will be built up to a much greater extent than has been possible up to date. We shall do our utmost to see that both become, as they were before the war, two most important branches of the Royal Navy.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) asked why there were so many men ashore and so few at sea. I propose to deal with that point at greater length in my speech on the Navy Estimates. I would only say that there is an organisation called the Naval Air Arm, which was hardly in existence before the war, and there are large numbers of men now 1025 stationed at aerodromes in this country who were not so stationed before. It is one example, and a big one, of the change in the disposition of men ashore and afloat. These men are on shore jobs which are vital to the Navy. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Horncastle and my hon. Friend the Member for South Poplar (Mr. Guy) asked about Dartmouth. The figure of £50,000 in the Estimate was the result of an error in the original Estimate and the revised Estimate implies no change in policy. Nothing is being done to Dartmouth, or taken away from Dartmouth.

§ Captain Marsden
Does that Vote include the change from Eaton to Dartmouth?

§ Mr. Dugdale
Yes. My hon. Friend the Member for South Poplar also raised the question of the scholarships which were introduced by my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Defence. They have indeed proved extremely successful, and we are continuing them. They are opening Dartmouth to a class of people who had never had any opportunity previously of going through Dartmouth, because of lack of funds. The hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle asked a question which interested me. I also saw this peculiar word "Materiel." I was interested to know why it was there, as I very much dislike even the word "personnel" which I use every day. I dislike this word even more, but I made some inquiries and I find that it appears in "Chambers' 20th Century Dictionary" and is apparently now recognised as English. It means The totality of materials or instruments employed (as in an Army) as distinguished from the personnel or men—applied especially to military stores, arms, baggage, forces, etc.

§ Commander Maitland
Is it not time that we withdrew recognition?

§ Mr. Dugdale
I am not quite certain that it comes within the Vote to withdraw recognition to Chamber's Dictionary.
Perhaps I might pass on to something which might be closely related to that. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) asked for some further details in connection with the increase of the cost of personnel. That is due, first, to slower release than was estimated originally. Roughly £4.7 million is due to that, and roughly £2 million is due mainly 1026 to something which I think all hon. Members will welcome, namely the new pay code. The hon. Member also asked a question about scientific research. I think I had better say as little as possible about that on this Vote, but I will certainly refer to it on the Navy Estimates. In regard to the question of rents, I was extremely interested in the solicitude of the hon. Member for Hereford and the hon. and gallant Member for Chertsey about the Admiralty having to pay rents to landlords. I should not have been at all surprised if speeches of that kind had come from this side of the Committee. I am very interested when they come from hon. Members opposite.
The main reason for this increase in rents is that, strictly speaking, they are not rents in the ordinary sense of the term. They are arrangements for compensation made in connection with de-requisitioning. There has been a great deal of de-requisitioning this year, and in consequence, there have been a great many payments. Reference was also made to the size of the staff of the Admiralty. I think I need hardly say to the hon. Member that although the staff is considerably bigger than it was before the war, I am sure that he would be the first to recognise that exceedingly good work is done.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas
I said so.

§ Mr. Dugdale
We are constantly taking steps to see that the staff is kept down to the very minimum which is necessary to keep the Navy running in the efficient manner which we expect. Such duties as the payment of gratuities, the general settlement of claims and contracts, and other things which must be done at the end of a war, necessarily involve the employment of a larger staff than is kept under normal conditions.
The hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) went into considerable detail on the question of contracts. I am not quite certain how far. I could go without being out of Order in replying to him. I think in the time of my predecessor, at any rate approximately in 1941, the Admiralty decided for the first time, to go into greater detail in the examination of contracts than had been the case previously. That was done with considerable success. Today we find that, even with that greater examination. 1027 there are cases where firms have charged prices which allow for as much as 33⅓ per cent. profit. I am glad to say there have not been many cases, but there have been some. We consider it of vital importance that we should be able to investigate all these costs. We should have a reasonably large staff for that investigation in order to effect as great a saving as possible.
The hon. and gallant Member for Holderness talked about "slops." He was concerned to know about duty-free tobacco. The position is exactly as it was in the past. I can assure him that there has been no change in that respect. I would remind him that the lodging allowance has almost been doubled, and that contributes to an increased cost—

§ Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite
Does that come under this heading?

§ Mr. Dugdale
Yes. The position in regard to soap is also unchanged. As he and other hon. Members connected with the Navy know, the sailor has to do his own washing and he needs a considerable amount of soap for that purpose. The figure is an increase on the Estimates for this year, not an increase on the expenditure for last year, which is quite a different matter. The hon. and gallant Member for Chertsey and the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) asked about Indian defence expenditure. The position is that we are liable for all Indian naval defence expenditure in excess of a certain ceiling. If that ceiling is exceeded, as it has been this year, the Admiralty must pay the difference.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mallalieu) and the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) were concerned about the increase in the cost of stores. They asked whether we had many obsolescent stores. I can assure them we have not. This increase is due largely to the late settlement of war contracts. The hon. Member for Galloway dealt with the subject of the Women's Royal Naval Service. He said he welcomed the increase in expenditure. He hoped that the Admiralty would use women as far as possible, and that the Women's Royal Naval Service would be developed. That is what we intend to do. We hope to develop this branch to the utmost possible 1028 extent. We know that women can do very many jobs in the Navy which, before the war, people thought could only be done by men. Today, we are able to have them done by women and we intend to employ them in this work to an increasing extent during the coming years.
The hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt) asked about the salaries and wages of civilians. They show an increase for two reasons. First, certain work has been done in the Royal Dockyards in order to be certain that men were not thrown out of work unnecessarily. We attach great importance to this. Among this work is what is known as "repayment work." We have employed quite a large number of men on "repayment work" which has included the manufacture of such vital things as housing materials. Approximately 5,000 men have been employed. If this work had not been arranged it is quite possible that they might have been temporarily unemployed. Apart from that, the men's wages have risen during the year—

§ Sir W. Darling
Is that borne on the Navy Estimate if it is a contribution to the housing needs?

§ Mr. Dugdale
That is where the hon. Member is under an illusion.

§ Sir W. Darling
Will the hon. Gentleman dissipate it for me?

§ Mr. Dugdale
I will give an illustration. If a private company intended to make some housing materials, it would put down a certain sum by way of capital which would be said to be an investment, and the firm would expect a return on it. That is exactly what we are doing. Under the system of Government accounting, this goes down as expenditure. In fact, we hope to get an ample return from the people who buy the products which we make, whether they are bought by Government Departments or private firms.

Vice-Admiral Taylor
What is the profit made by the Admiralty?

§ Mr. Dugdale
I shall be able to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman a better idea of that at the end of the year. The hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) was concerned with the questions of Scotland and of telephones. Those were the two matters which exercised his 1029 mind. I entirely agree that Scotland plays a very important part in wartime. We all know that without Scapa Flow, the Navy might have been in a very bad way during the last war. Scotland will not be neglected. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Scotland will have its due portion of whatever is spent by the Navy. As regards telephones, I can only assure the hon. Gentleman that the Admiralty is a very large organisation, and it is not surprising that we should spend a considerable sum on telephones. I understand that, in fact, £220,000 of this account is in respect of a wartime account of Cable and Wireless, which has only recently been received. Had we received it earlier, it would obviously have been placed in the original Estimate.

§ Sir W. Darling
Is that also included in the postage bill?

§ Mr. Dugdale
Well, telephones are considered to be part of postage.

§ Sir W. Darling
The hon. Gentleman did not say so.

§ Mr. Dugdale
The hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) referred to medical services, and to the committee on the question of their amalgamation. I can only say that the committee has not reached a final conclusion. When it does, I have no doubt that the Minister of Defence, or the proper Minister, would announce it, but I can say nothing further about that now.
Finally, I would just say that I was grateful to the hon. Member for Hereford when he said that, on the whole, these Estimates were very reasonable in not showing a very great excess. I think the hon. Member is right there. I would remind him, although I am sure he knows, that, after the previous war, the Admiralty experienced much greater difficulty in making an Estimate which was reasonably near the mark. In fact, some considerable period after the war, the Admiralty had to ask, not only for increased Estimates, but for an Excess Vote. I think the officials of the Admiralty have discharged their duties very well in getting as close as they have done. I hope that the Committee will give us this Vote and realise that it is due to the fact that we are changing from war to peace, which is the most difficult time in which to try to estimate correctly.

Vice-Admiral Taylor
Will the hon. Gentleman give me an answer to my question about officers on retired pay—those who were retired under the 1919 arrangement?

§ Mr. Dugdale
I have answered a very large number of points. I will answer that one at a later date.

Vice-Admiral Taylor
Why cannot the hon. Gentleman answer it now?

§ Commander Noble (Chelsea)
As the hon. Gentleman referred in his reply to the Reserves, and made a definite statement, perhaps I would be in order in saying a word or two. The hon. Gentleman said he hoped to make the Reserves as good as they were before the war. But I hope, and I think we on this side of the Committee are all agreed, that these Reserves are going to be given far more advantages than before the war. We all consider that a great deal of time has been wasted—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The hon. and gallant Member is out of Order in discussing these details.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
Would the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary say what the repayment claims are for, and what are the payments? Would he also say what are the waivers of claims to our Allies, and to whom we made them?

§ Mr. Dugdale
Yes, Sir. On the second point, waivers of claims have been made to France and Yugoslavia.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
Why have we made the claims?

§ Mr. Dugdale
Quite frankly, I admit that I cannot answer that question off-hand.

§ Sir R. Glyn
Could the hon. Gentleman give any assurance at all about allowances to officers, whether out-stations are to be reduced and whether the officers are going to be given these increases?

§ Mr. Dugdale
No, Sir; I would prefer to deal with that in the main Estimates, and I assure the hon. Member that I will give him a full reply then.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas
Has the hon. Gentleman any further information on the position in Bath? Could he give a fuller reply, if not now, on the main Estimates?

§ Mr. Dugdale
Yes, Sir. I can only say that, as hon. Members know, there is a considerable shortage of housing accommodation in London, and it is exceedingly difficult to move a large staff to London. I will not say more than that now, but hon. Members will realise that it is not an easy task to move such a large number of people straight away to London.