PAY AND PENSIONS IN THE NAVY.

HL Deb 14 August 1917 vol 26 cc383-408

LORD BERESFORD had the following Questions on the Paper—

To ask His Majesty's Government whether the question of increasing the pay of petty officers and men of the Royal Navy has received recent consideration, and if so, with what result; whether a proportion of the men's pay is stopped for every day they are under treatment in hospital over 30 days, and whether their pay ceases altogether after 91 days' sickness; whether consideration will be given at once to the claims of the warrant officers, petty officers and men of the Royal Navy for promotion to higher ranks and ratings in place of the entry of inexperienced civilians to fill these responsible positions; whether petty officers and men who have completed their qualifying service for pension during the war have been refused payment of those pensions and have been paid 2d. a day in lieu; whether the number of men now serving whose, time for pension has so expired, the approximate annual value of the pensions being withheld, and the total sum being paid in lieu can be stated; whether able seamen and equivalent ratings who were in receipt of, or subsequently became entitled to, a pension of 1s 2d. a day can increase their pensions by service during the war, and if so, by what amount; and whether any petty officer or man, whatever the length of time he is detained in the Royal Navy during hostilities, can receive any higher pension for service, badges, character, and medal than the amount he could have become entitled to after completion of the 22 years qualifying period for pension; and to move a Resolution.

The noble and gallant Lord said: My Lords, I desire to bring before you a variety of matters connected with the treatment of the men of the Fleet in accordance with what I maintain are their rights. The questions are of vast interest to the Navy, and there is in connection with them a large amount of irritation, disquiet, and unrest which I need not remind your Lordships is bad for the efficiency of the Service and bad also for the welfare of the State. I naturally sympathise with the men. I was in the Service for fifty years, and ever since I first entered Parliament in 1874 I have been fighting for the betterment of their conditions.

The most important questions I wish to bring before the House this evening are in connection with pay and pensions. The matter of pensions is at the moment causing a great deal of irritation in the Fleet. I say that as it stands now there is a great injustice and a breach of contract between the Government and the men, and I intend to prove this. The contract between the Government and the men when they join the Service is in these terms, that after twenty-two years qualifying service they get pensions which are awarded for life. That is a definite and distinct contract which, if broken, concerns the honour of the State. Your Lordships will bear in mind that a pension is really only deferred pay. The men are paid less than what might be described as the market price, in order that a pension may be provided for them. If that were not the case, they would be paid more.

I should like to explain the case as it stands at this moment. I will take the case of an able seaman whose pension became due, we will say, on August 1, 1914. He cannot get more than 1s. 2s. a day, or less than 10d. a day. If he gets the former rate it is made up by 10d. a day bare pension, 2d. a day for three good conduct badges, 1d. a day for good conduct medal, and 1d. a day for all "V.G.'s." From August 1, 1914, or very soon after, to the present time, he would have drawn £63 17s. 6d. besides his pay if he had gone on in the Navy. The second case is that of a man who completes his time for pension on, say, August 5,1914—that is, after the war broke out. It is incredible to think that the Admiralty have stopped the pensions in this latter case, the pensions which the men had earned and which had been promised in the contract they made with the State. A man in this second category would have drawn £63 17s. 6d. during the three years from August 5, 1914, until now. But the Admiralty have taken it away; the man can never get it, and, if he was killed, his widow could never get it. I say that this is monstrous and unjust, and it gives rise to the present unrest in the Navy. What do the Admiralty give this man instead of his pension? They have given him 2d. a day for these three years, so that as a matter of fact, although the man who qualified for a pension on August 1,1914, has drawn his £63 odd, these men who would have qualified a few days after have received only £9 2s. 6d., although they have probably served the State with credit to themselves and utility to the Service. So that the Admiralty have actually made out of a man in these circumstances £54 15s. I repeat that such a state of affairs is monstrous. The matter was not brought out quite clearly in the other House. It was said there, "We are not giving these men their pensions, but we are giving them 2d. a day," but the fact was not brought forward that all these men—there are nearly 5,000 of them—were mulcted of this enormous sum. So far I have been dealing with the lowest ratings, the able seaman. The Secretary of the Admiralty—and in speaking of him I wish to say that all those who belong to the Service are very grateful for the way he has worked for the Service; I have had a great deal to do with him by way of conversations and correspondence, and he has always been most sympathetic towards the men and shown a desire to better their condition as far as he could manage it—the Secretary of the Admiralty took the pension that a man can get after 22 years on the lowest scale, and, although he did not say it, he made out that the man would lose £36 10s. I have taken the highest scale of pension—namely, 1s. 2d. a day.

I now come to the petty officers. Their pay is, of course, more, and their position is a great deal worse. Before the war the average pension of a petty officer would have been £45 a year; consequently if his pension had become due before the war broke out, he would have drawn £135 in the three years. There are many men on board who have drawn this amount during the three years, but only because their pensions became due before the war commenced. Let me now take those men whose pensions became due on, say, August 5, 1914. Instead of £135, they have received only the 2d. a day; so that, taking the average rate of pension for a petty officer, these men since the war have been mulcted by the State of £125 17s. 6d. I repeat that there is no chance of their getting these pensions until after the war; and they will then not get the pension due to them, for if the war goes on for four years they will get only the pension at the end of it which they would have received if the war had not broken out.

I must point out to the noble Earl that this thing is so bad that the trade unions of the country have taken it up, and I shall support them as far as I can in demanding, not only that this money should be paid to the men who, as I contend, have a lawful right to it, but that the money due to them should be paid retrospectively. I do not believe there is a man in your Lordships' House who, after my telling you these things, would not agree that these men, to put it in the mildest way possible, have been "done out of" their pay. I will put it strongly, and say that they have been robbed of the pay which was due to them under their contract with the State, and I challenge anybody to get up and say that what I have stated is incorrect. There is a small addition of 4½d a day for petty officers and 3d. a day for chief petty officers, which they will get after the war owing to their extra service; but the fact remains that the 5,000 men or more who are concerned have been done out of this sum of money. I hope that my noble and learned friend below me, Lord Buckmaster, will say something about this. I should like to know what the legal expression is for breaking a contract of this description. I do not know what would happen in civil life, but I believe that a person who acted in this way would be brought before the Law Courts and made to pay damages. It is even more disgraceful that such a thing should happen in the case of men upon whom the whole success of the war depends. Whether the war ends in victory or defeat, it depends upon the British Navy, not only as regards ourselves but our Allies, and yet these men are mulcted of what is due to them. What is due to them will not be paid after the war. It is a great deal worse than that, because this large sum of money has been taken away from their wives and relatives, and they will not get it at any time.

Dr. Macnamara said in the other House— I can give no undertaking at all with regard to the return to the widow, if the man dies before entering into his pension, of the value of the pension which he otherwise would have drawn.

A man dies in the service of the State and is mulcted of this sum of money, and the Secretary of the Admiralty tells the House of Commons that the widow is never to get it! It is a monstrous thing, and it has got to be put right. It reminds me of the old days when Lord Cochrane called attention in the House of Commons to the scandals connected with the Chatham Chest. In those days there were large ships' companies, something like 240,000 men in the Navy, and every officer had to pay a certain sum a month to the Chatham Chest. The amount involved was, according to some people, £5,000,000, and according to others £2,000,000, but it practically all disappeared. Many scandals also occurred in those days with regard to food and clothing. There is no danger of that sort of thing happening to-day, because you have not a more chivalrous and gallant body of men in the world than there is in the British Navy. But because they cannot speak for themselves there is no reason why those who understand the question should not speak for them; and after what I have said, I hope that your Lordships, if you are consulted in the matter, will support me in asking that the men should have this money, and that the payment should be retrospective. It looks as if the Government, with their agreements and contracts, are something like the Germans, who tear them up as "scraps of paper" when it suits them.

I wish to make clearer the point about the contract. There is nothing in the contract to say that the men are not to have their pensions when due; in fact, it is emphasised that they are to have them because the only point in the contract with regard to a man not getting his pension after 22 years service is this—that a man who joins a foreign service and fights or works under a foreign flag does not get his pension. That is the only thing in the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions which disqualifies a man for his pension. Yet these men in our Fleet who are going out every day to fight for us and at any moment may be blown up are debarred from their pensions because hostilities have broken out. Every higher rate of wages and every bonus given to all other individuals is put down to hostilities. Yet during hostilities you stop the pensions of men who have earned them by 22 years service in the Navy as petty officers and able seamen.

This matter of pensions should be settled at once, and that is what I am going to urge upon the trade unions. I do not like to have to go to the trade unions about the pay of the men in the Fleet, but what else am I to do? The unions have taken it up. I shall support them, and I am certain we shall get fair and just treatment for the men. The question of pay and the other points are matters that will be looked into. Dr. Macnamara says he is going to look into several of these matters, and I have great confidence that he will do his best. But the question of pay is very important and should be dealt with shortly, while the pensions question should be seen to at once. It is incredible to think that the pay of the able seaman—namely 1s. 7d. a day—is exactly the same to-day as when I joined the Service in 1859. He gets an extra 1d. a day if he is a trained man. Is it not a monstrous state of affairs that the pay of an able seaman should be the same now as it was sixty years ago? When I first joined a stoker got 2s. a day, a private in the Marines 1s. 2d. a day, and a gunner in the Royal Marine Artillery 1s. 5½d. a day. As I have said already, an able seaman now gets 1s. 8d.; a stoker gets 2s. 1d., a penny a day more than he did sixty years ago; a private of Marines gets 1s. 5d., and a gunner in the Royal Marine Artillery gets 1s. 7d. Every other class in the community has had its rates of pay raised since then. Food, clothing, rates, and rents have gone up; but the blue-jackets, stokers, and marines—I am not talking of the other ratings now, but of the main ratings in the Service from which promotions are made—are in the same condition as when I joined the Service in 1859.

In his speech in another place Dr. Macnamara said that the blue-jacket, stoker, and marines were in a different position from the people on shore, because they were fed, housed, and to some extent clothed, and also received separation allowances and pensions. I have dealt with the pension. I will now deal with the other points which he raised. The argument that the conditions of these men compare favourably with those of men in civil life is incorrect. Take a skilled man on shore. He gets about £3 a week, which, with bonus and overtime, can be increased to £5 or even £8 a week. But our sailors get their pensions stopped because of the war. Of course, I do not take any exception to the rates of pay for the men on shore. An unskilled labourer on shore can now earn from £2 10s. to £2 15s. a week. I do not object to their getting these wages. But they are safe at home, and they are safe at home only because of the loyalty and chivalry and gallantry of the men at sea, who are treated in the way of which I have spoken.

In 1912 it was said that the pay of the Navy had been increased all round. I remember the great fuss that was made about it in the House of Commons. As I pointed out at the time, it was absolutely incorrect. What was done? They gave certain ratings an increase of 4d. a day, but they excluded the able seaman, the ordinary seaman and boys from getting that 4d. a day until they had served for six years. It was one of those, flat-catching ideas which are brought forward at times. It was not fair to the men. What really occurred is what I have just told your Lordships.

Dr. Macnamara then said that the man in the Fleet is fed. He is only partially fed, just as he is only partially clothed. Feeding is part of the contract. Before the war the men received a standard ration. Since the war that ration has been reduced. The bread ration has been reduced from 1b. to 10 ozs., and the sugar from 4 ozs. to 2 ozs. I do not say that there was no waste of bread; many of us called attention to it before. I do not say that the sugar ration should not have been reduced. But I do say that, if the men have the ration which was in the contract reduced, they should get a fair sum in place of it. They get 1d. a day in lieu of that ration, and an extra ½d. a day to meet the increase charges in the canteen. In these times of stress, high tension, continual duty day and night, men want more food. Dr. Macnamara said—and very truly—that he doubted whether 5½d. covered the increased prices that the men have to pay at the canteens. It does not, and I hope that this will be looked into and very much improved in the near future.

To support the view which I have ventured to bring before your Lordships that the men want more food in these trying times, I will point out this. I have already stated that the ration has been reduced, and that they get 1d. a day in lieu of the ration and ½d. a day for what they have to pay extra at the canteen. Before the war the mess bills of the men averaged 8s. a month; since the war these mess bills have averaged 20s. a month. That proves my case, that the men do not get enough and should have more; and those who take an interest in the matter are going to see that they get more. Bacon, cheese, and butter are not in the Admiralty standard ration, and the men have to get all those things from the canteen, for which they are allowed ½d. a day!

Then Dr. Macnamara stated that the men are housed. A ship to a seaman is exactly like a shop to an artisan. Both of them pay their rates and their rents, but a sailor has none of the comforts that an artisan gets. He is allowed very limited leave, and the "house" in which he works may be blown up and he himself may be blown to smithereens at any moment. That is very different from a man's house on shore. It is time these things were made public. The men cannot make them public themselves. In 1797 an anonymous circular was sent round, couched in most respectful language, but it was not listened to. The result of that was deplorable, disastrous, and discreditable. Another circular has now gone round. The Admiralty know all about it. Again it is anonymous. It is in respectful language, and it has been made out by the chief petty officers and the whole of the men of the Fleet. That will have to be attended to. These matters ought to have been remedied before the men thought it right to take such a step in their own interests.

Dr. Macnamara further remarked that the men are to some extent clothed. That was rather a naive remark, but it was quite true. What happens is this. With the exception of the marines, who get their kit replenished and made up every year, nobody in the Navy gets more than a first issue of clothing; the only assistance he gets to keep up his kit is a gratuity of from £2 10s. to £3 10s. according to the rating, but only after completing twelve years, or if they take on again at the end of that time. The price of what the seaman calls "slops," which means everything connected with clothing, has gone up since the beginning of the war to the extent of over 24 per cent.; and it is curious that this point was one of the grievances put in the circular of 1797 before the disastrous occurrences to which I have referred. It must be remembered that the seaman has to keep up his kit and to have it smart and efficient. Some slight allowances have been made. For instance, he gets 4s. 3d. a quarter for a coaling suit, a gratuity on the change of uniform, and, to the credit of the Admiralty let it be said, there has been a great deal done lately in the way of giving warm clothing for the winter in the North Sea and gratuities for lighter clothing for service in hot climates. But I must remind the noble Earl that this was not done until the great British public had put their hands in their pockets and subscribed enormous sums of money in the first year of the, war to provide the men with waterproofs, sea boots, comforters, bendigo coats, and many other things which they required. The Admiralty are now doing that very effectively. But the point of Dr. Macnamara's remark was that the men pay something like £200,000 a year less than the cost price, which falls on the Government, owing to "slops" having gone up. My point is that the men should not only have a free kit, but a free annual issue. The men of the Fleet are the only men in the Government service who do not get a free annual issue. The police get it, the soldiers get it, and the marines get it. Why this differentiation? Is it because the grievance has not been represented? That cannot be so, because it has been represented many times. But, as I say, the trade unions have now taken the whole matter up, and we shall find that the men will get it.

I come now to separation allowances. The Service is very grateful for what the Admiralty has done in this connection. Before, the men had none. Now they have fair separation allowances, and the allowances for children have been twice increased since the war. But Dr. Macnamara made a great mistake when he said that the fact of the ordinary seaman paying 5s. to get the 6s. allowance would put him level with the soldier. The amount received is the same; but whereas the blue jacket pays 5s. to get the 6s., the soldier has to pay only 3s. 6s. We shall not be satisfied until we get them both on the same level. They are both risking their lives for us, and the country ought to be grateful enough to see that their wives have a good separation allowance. The allowance is ample now, but the seamen should not have to pay too much for it, as they now do compared with the other Service. The Admiralty allow 6s. a week, and the sailor pays 5s.; the War Office allow 9s. a week, and the private soldier allots 3s. 6d. That has got to be altered.

I now pass to a very old grievance in the Service—the question of hospital stoppages. After thirty days in hospital the man's pay is decreased. When the men join the Service it is stated in their contract that they will have medical attendance. For years it did not say for how long; but lately the authorities have put in "After thirty days the pay is decreased, and after ninety days if stops altogether." And not only does it stop, but the time for pay, and the time for badges and the time for pensions stop after ninety-one days, when a man may be suffering from some illness of the kidneys, or rupture, or injury to the brain, contracted in the Service. He is treated exactly the same as if he had committed a misdemeanour and had been sent to prison. I think that is monstrous. Dr. Macnamara also stated that £8,300 was the total amount that had been stopped for hospital stoppages. Of course, there are certain diseases which men get through their own fault. In that case I agree that stoppages ought to be made; but in all other cases there should be no stoppages. The men should get their medical treatment, as was promised them in their contract upon joining; and as foist stopping the time after ninety-one days and taking every bit of pay away from them except the separation to the wife, that ought not to be allowed.

Another point is that of entering civilians in the Fleet over and above the seamen. Many of these, civilians have to be taught their duties by the petty officers and others over whom they are going to be given their commissions. That is ludicrous. Of course, I know we have to join a large number of civilians in war time, but why give them commissions and put them over the heads of old petty officers who have to teach them their duties? That is altogether wrong. We ought to have promoted many warrant officers and men from the lower deck, and many artisans and other-people, particularly in the Paymaster's Department, where the writers are a most excellent and well-educated body of men. Yet men have been taken on from the shore and put over their heads with commissioned rank. That ought to be stopped. Of course, there must be certain qualifications for promotion, but surely the people who have served you for many years in the Royal Navy in all branches are more qualified for promotion than people coming from the outside, some of whom may never have seen a ship before in their lives. To show the different way in which the United States Navy manage this question, immediately war was declared they promoted 496 men from the lower deck to be officers. They did not go outside to get civilians. I am not saying anything against civilians. I admire them for going to sea and helping to do what they could during the war, but I say that the positions they are put into are quite wrong and unfair and hurtful to the older men who have served you so long in the Fleet.

There is another ease, which I do not think I mentioned to the noble Earl opposite when I told him the matters on which I was going to ask him to answer but it is a terribly hard case. I know the case—I tried to bring the man here to-day. A man, say, loses a leg, or is wounded in the leg or arm, or whatever it is. The Admiralty wish to do something for him, so they employ him on what is called shore service. Would the House believe it, that when the man is so employed his pension for wounds is stopped. The authorities do not do this in the case of officers, which is, of course, quite right. But the man has earned his pension, he has got wounds, he has lost a limb; why do the State say, "We will employ you at the old rate of pay "? He is ashore instead of afloat—that is the only difference. I know two or three of these cases, and the one I have particularly in mind is a writer who has lost his leg. The authorities employ him on shore service, but say that he cannot have his pension for wounds. If he retired altogether from the Fleet and came ashore he would get his pension. I hope the noble Earl will answer that point. Ail these questions are important, and they concern the welfare, happiness, and comfort of the men in the Fleet, and it would be only just ice to the men and in accordance with their rights that these; matters should be put straight.

I come now to the question of coastguards. I am afraid I did not mention this to my noble friend. I cannot find any trace of a rise in the pay of the coastguards. When the Navy promotes chief petty officers and warrant officers, they are allowed something for their outfit, but the coastguard chief petty officers and warrant officers get nothing. That ought to be put right. Certainly some arrangement should be made whereby the coastguards should get, the increase of 4d. a day which the Navy got in 1912, and to which I have referred. The family allowance of the coastguard is not sufficient, and it should be made up to something parallel to the separation allowances obtaining in the Navy.

The question of promotion from the lower deck is better, but it is not nearly as good as it should be. Dr. Macnamara asked for suggestions, and he said that I was satisfied when I made a remark in this House relative to some men who had I been promoted from the lower deck. I never said I was satisfied. I said I was delighted to see that this injustice to the men had been at last taken in hand. For many years I have tried to get promotion from the lower deck. I think it was in 1874 in the House of Commons when I first brought this before Parliament. In the Sudan Campaign two warrant officers, Mr. Webber, a boatswain on the" Sapphire, "and Mr. Craigie, who was on the "Nile," were made lieutenants. But for years there were no more of such promotions. Now the authorities have begun to look into the matter. My noble friend was right in what he said the other day, that you cannot promote for gallantry only, and must have other qualifications. But my point is that there are many men who should be promoted from the lower deck now, and they have felt the position more acutely owing to civilians coming in during the war and being promoted over their heads. I should promote selected men within a reasonable period. I know that my noble friend will say that there will be no billets for them after the war, and that you cannot promote a man and then let him revert to his former rank. I say we should promote selected men within a reasonable period, and on their completing their time at the end of the war let them go on the pension which they would have had if they had not been promoted. I think that would meet the men's views.

I want to point out, with regard to these questions generally, and particularly with regard to the pension, that a Government, no matter what Government it is, would not dare to do such a thing as this where a trade union is concerned, or where a vote is concerned, or where the people concerned can make their grievances public. They are trespassing on the loyalty, chivalry, and gallantry of these men and they have no right to do it. They know that these men have no way of representing their grievances to the Government. I have made many suggestions about the lower deck in my time, and I would like to make this further suggestion. Why should not the Government give a better flat rate of pay for the early entries? That would adjust every thing. If you want to get the pay of a community improved, always begin at the lowest. They are the poorest; and if yon get that carried, there is no doubt that those above will receive a corresponding benefit. There has been no improvement since 1912 in the pay; and then, as I have already shown, it was not a real improvement. I should like to see the lower deck men attached to the office of the Second Sea Lord, whoever he is going to be. All these lower deck requests go through civilian clerks at the Admiralty, who know as much about the subject as this bench. They ought to have a lower deck man there. I suggested to Mr. Barnes that he should take a lower deck man on in connection with pensions. The Admiralty approved of the suggestion, and that man has been of the greatest use to Mr. Barnes, because he knows the subject. Civilian clerks may be the best people in the world, but they do not know anything about the matter, and we should have men in these positions who know. We have had many things done in the Service. But a few of us who have fought for the Service have never had any single thing done without agitation and bringing the matter before the public. I may mention some of the things we have had done—a free kit on entry; chief petty officer rates given to artisans and others; commissioned officer rank given to the lower deck; more warrant officer ranks thrown open for all departments; better food and means of cooking; and the placing of bakeries on board in order to supply fresh bread.

I am afraid I have detained your Lordships for some time; but there is not a single noble Lord in the House who will not agree with me that the comfort of and fair treatment for the men of the Fleet are the first things we should look to. We are absolutely dependent on them. Think how well we have been served both by the men in the Royal Navy and in the Mercantile Marine. Men in the Mercantile Marine have been blown up three, four, and even more times; yet immediately they come into harbour they sign on again. And as for men of the Royal Navy, it would be an insult to praise them. Your Lordships know their value as well as I do myself.

One point more. My noble friend promised me that he; would look into the question of the boys. I pointed out on a former occasion that 300 boys below the age of 18 were sent to kingdom come in the Battle of Jutland. I contend that every boy who has been in action should be allowed to count his time for pension. Surely they cannot do more than risk their lives for us. It does not matter whether a lad is 16 or 18; he is risking his life. All these boys who survive after having been in action should be allowed to count their time for pension.

These reforms—I do not call the question of the pension a reform; I call it a right, and a matter that has to be seen into and settled and made retrospective—will take time and discussion. The country wishes to pay its Naval Forces fairly, but that is not being done now. It should be done, particularly when we take into account not only the increased cost of every necessity of life, but the yeoman service that the men of the Fleet have rendered to this country and to our Allies during the war. It may cost £1,000,000 or even more, but I should like to point out to your Lordships that those who during the war have benefited, both in the way of bonuses and increased wages, could only have so benefited because of the gallantry, chivalry, and loyalty to duty of the British Navy. I hope that when my noble friend replies he will not try in any way to reduce my argument with regard to pensions, because I am determined to go through with that, if I go right-through the country about it. The present position is unfair and unjust to the men, who ought to receive their pensions at once, and the payment should be made retrospective.

THE ADDITIONAL PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF LYTTON)

My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord has put upon the Paper a number of Questions asking for information on certain points, which information I am prepared to give him so far as I can. In support of those Questions he has made a long speech to your Lordships, of the length of which I do not in the least complain—the matter is a very important one—but of the tone of some of his remarks I do very strongly complain. The noble and gallant Lord has asked your Lordships to believe that the Admiralty is engaged apparently in squeezing and depriving the sailor of his rights, and in some particular respects of cheating him and robbing him. I do not quarrel with the noble and gallant Lord for bringing the case of the grievances of the men of the Navy before Parliament. I honour and respect him for doing so, and greatly sympathise with the desire that he has to make the condition of the men in our Navy as comfortable and as satisfactory as possible. But I hold that he is doing a very bad service to the men of the Fleet in telling them that they are being robbed and cheated by the Government, that the Government has not kept faith with them, and that it has broken its contracts with them. To tell the people that, this is the way they have been treated is, I think, a very mischievous thing to do. I hope before I finish that I maybe able to remove the impression which the noble and gallant Lord has tried to convey.

I propose to take the points which he, has put upon the Paper in the order in which they appear. The first Question which the noble Lord has asked me relates to the pay of petty officers and men. He asks whether the question of increasing the pay of petty officers and men of the Royal Navy has received recent consideration. My answer is that the question of the pay of the petty officers and men is occupying the consideration of the naval authorities and of the Admiralty and of a special Committee at this very moment. The noble and gallant Lord referred to the fact that the cost of living had considerably gone up during the war. That is perfectly true, but that is a matter which is common to all classes in the country. That particular difficulty is shared not only by the soldier who are fighting in our Army, but by the workers at home, and, indeed, by all classes. It is largely, I hope, a temporary difficulty, due to conditions which will pass away, and a difficulty which will cease, I trust, with the termination of the war.

LORD BERESFORD

May I point out to my noble friend that canteen prices are 30 per cent. higher than the civilian population is paying on shore.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

It is, nevertheless, perfectly true that the increase of living which the sailor has to meet is a matter which is common to all classes in the country. I say that this is a matter which, being of a temporary kind, has to be met by temporary arrangement. There is at this moment a Committee considering the question of how the increased cost of living may best be met during the war, and until that body makes its recommendations I am not at liberty to tell the noble and gallant Lord anything about it. Very large sums of money are involved in the matters now under consideration. The decisions of that body will have to be submitted to the Board of Admiralty, and then finally to the members of the Cabinet. Therefore, until the matters now being considered have been definitely decided I am unable to give the noble and gallant Lord any information as to the result for which he asks.

The second Question relates to hospital stoppages. That also is now being considered. The facts stated by the noble and gallant Lord in his Question on the Paper are substantially correct, except this. No stoppages in hospital are made for injuries or disease caused by the conditions of service.

LORD BERESFORD

Hear, hear.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The noble and gallant Lord pointed out the conditions of life the sailor has to meet, and stated that if under those conditions he incurs any injury and goes to hospital, his pay is stopped. That is not true.

LORD BERESFORD

I never said so.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

Any disease which a man incurs by reason of his service is not made a reason for stopping his pay when he goes to hospital. Stoppages are made only in the form in which the noble Lord has described on the Paper for illnesses contracted quite regardless of the conditions of service. That is the practice at the present moment. Whether that practice should be continued or modified is under consideration. Here, again, I must ask the noble and gallant Lord to await the result of that consideration before I can give him the decision.

The third Question has reference to the introduction of civilians to carry out special duties occasioned by the war. Lord Beresford implied in his speech that civilians were introduced and given commissions at the expense of petty officers and men in the Royal Navy. I think he rather led your Lordships to suppose that these men were given permanent commissions in the Navy to the detriment of warrant officers and petty officers.

LORD BERESFORD

I said "during the war."

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I wish to make it quite clear that it is only with regard to temporary commissions for special war duties, which will cease when the war is over, that this has been done; and as soon as the war is over and their special duties are completed, they will return to their civilian status and to their civilian occupation. I protest that it is quite untrue to describe these men as inexperienced civilians. They have been selected as possessing the special qualifications necessary to fulfil the duties assigned to them. Again, wherever it has been possible to promote warrant officers and petty officers, always having regard to the permanent needs of the Service, that course has been adopted, and the figures which I gave to the noble and gallant Lord on a previous occasion are proof that the claims of the lower deck have not been overlooked. But if the course advocated by the noble and gallant Lord had been followed and a larger number of temporary commissions had been given to warrant officers and petty officers, the result would have been that after the war a large proportion of these men would have been obliged to revert to their former rank. The noble and gallant Lord foresaw the inevitable difficulty himself.

LORD BERESFORD

Hear, hear.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

We have been obliged in this matter to consider the permanent needs of the Service, and if we allowed the higher ratings to be overborne in comparison with our post-war requirements we should be in a position of very great difficulty when the Navy is cut down to its peace footing.

The fourth Question which the noble and gallant Lord has put on the Paper is the one which occupied the greater portion of his speech—namely, the position of those men who have reached the point at which in peace time they would be discharged to pension, and who, because of the war, have been retained in the Service and are receiving detention pay in lieu of pension. The noble and gallant Lord said that these men had been deprived of their pensions, that their pensions had been stopped, withheld, taken away from them. That is not a truthful description of the matter. No man is entitled to a pension until he is discharged from the Service. These men are not discharged; they are still in the service of the State. Then, again, it is most unfair and untruthful to say that there has been any breach of contract between the State and the men in this matter. These men joined the Service under conditions, it is perfectly true, by which they would have been entitled to discharge at the end of twenty-two years, always provided that the country was at peace at the time.

LORD BERESFORD

Where does that occur?

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The noble and gallant Lord knows perfectly well that, under the Statute by which these men were retained for service when the war broke out, it is laid down that in the event of the country being at war men who were liable to be discharged may be retained for service.

LORD BERESFORD

Hear, hear.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

And that was a position which was perfectly well known to every man at present in the Navy at the time when he joined. I repeat that it is most unfair and untruthful to say to these men, "You were brought into the Service on the understanding that, whatever happened, whether we were at peace or at war, at the end of twenty-two years you would be discharged and given a pension. That has not been done. The Government has been guilty of a breach of contract and you have been robbed and cheated." That is untrue. The men knew perfectly well when they entered—

LORD BERESFORD

Not the men.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

What the conditions were. They knew that they would be entitled to discharge at the end of twenty-two years if the country was at peace at the time, but it is obvious that the country must have power, if at war, to retain their services.

LORD BERESFORD

Does the noble Earl wish the House to infer that these men are going to get the £63 and £135 respectively?

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I am going to deal with the position, if the noble and gallant Lord will allow me to go on. I stated that it was one of the conditions of service that a man who has reached the point at which he is liable to discharge may be retained in the service of the State if the country is at war. Therefore those men having been so retained, are, I repeat, not entitled to their pensions. They have not earned their pensions. No man has earned a pension or is entitled to a pension until he is discharged from the Service. Therefore it is erroneous to say that they have been robbed, or that their pensions have been withheld. That disposes of the suggestion that there has been any breach of contract or breach of faith with these men. The conditions of the Service under which they joined have, been fulfilled.

I will now come to the treatment which has been afforded to them. Let me compare the position of these men to what it would have been if there had been no war and they had been discharged. Supposing the country was still at peace and these men were discharged to pension, they would have been living on their pension, which is, roughly, about half their pay. At the present moment they are retained in the Service. They are in receipt of full pay, and, in addition to that, they are receiving detention pay, which, as the noble and gallant Lord knows perfectly well, is intended to meet the fact that they have been retained in the Service beyond the twenty-two years.

LORD BERESFORD

It is 2d. a day.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

Yes, for the first year; 4d. a day for the second year; and 6d. for the third year.

LORD BERESFORD

They have only 2d. a day for three years.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The present arrangement is that they get 2d. a day; any man who has been three years in the Service will be in receipt of 6d. a day.

LORD BERESFORD

No.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

Yes.

LORD BERESFORD

Not according to Dr. Macnamara.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The position is retrospective as regards pay, but not retrospective with regard to service. The man who is in his third year of service is getting 6d. a day. He is not going to get retrospectively the 2d. a day he would hare got if this had not been in force. Do I make myself clear?

LORD BERESFORD

No.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

Then I will repeat it. A man who is now serving one year beyond his twenty-two years will receive 2d. a day; a man who is to-day serving two years beyond his twenty-two years will receive 4d. a day; a man who is to-day serving his third year beyond the twenty-two years, which would entitle him to a pension, is in receipt of 6d. a day but that man who is to-day serving his third year would have been entitled to 2d. a day last year. To that extent it is not retrospective, but he is in receipt of 6d. a day from the time when this arrangement came into force. He is in receipt also of separation allowances, and, further, he is entitled to, and he will obtain, an increased pension when the war is over by reason of his continued service during the period of the war. At the present moment the maximum pay of 1s. 2d. cannot be exceeded—that is to say, a man who at the present moment has earned his maximum pension cannot, under existing regulations, receive a higher pension at the end of the war, but any man who has not received his maximum will be able to increase his pension by his service during the war up to that point. But the question of retaining the maximum is one of the matters under consideration by this body to which I have referred, and I have no doubt whatever that, when the matter is looked into, the retention of this maximum will not be insisted upon. But that is one of the many financial points now under consideration, and I cannot say any more about it until it has been finally decided. Therefore, I say, although the contract which the State entered into with the man, if you like to put it in that way, has been kept, that inasmuch as he has suffered hardship because he does not get his discharge and is retained in the Service, that being a war necessity, in order to meet the case created by that war necessity these arrangements which I have mentioned have been made.

There is only one remaining point with which I have not dealt. It is not on the Paper, but it is a matter to which the noble and gallant Lord referred—namely, the different treatment afforded to officers and men who are retained for shore service only. I admit that there is a distinction in this connection between the treatment of officers and of men, but it is a distinction which I think is perfectly defensible. A seaman who is injured in the war to the extent, perhaps, of losing a limb is regarded as unable to be of further use to the Service and is therefore discharged, and being discharged from the Service on account of his injury he becomes eligible for a special wounds or disability pension. An officer, on the other hand, who loses an arm or a leg in the Service is not regarded as no longer of any use, because he can continue to be of value to the Navy although he has suffered a bodily injury. His duties are different from those of the seaman. Therefore he can carry them out in spite of this injury. Consequently it is the practice to retain the officer on the active list despite his injury.

Although this distinction is of very long standing, and can, I think, be justified for the reasons I have mentioned, there do not seem to be the same grounds for justifying the distinction which is made where the disabled man and the disabled officer are both retained in the Service in spite of their disability. The men retained in the Service come under two classes—namely, those who are disabled and discharged to pension, but afterwards recalled and employed upon shore, service; and, secondly, the men who, though disabled, are retained in the service of the Navy and given full pay in place of disablement pension. With regard to the discharged man, his case is now under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Pensions, and if I may judge from an answer given in the House of Commons yesterday it has been decided by the Ministry of Pensions that from July 21 these men who have been discharged with disability pensions shall, when recalled to duties on shore, get their full pay as well as their disability pension. I believe I am Tight in saying that this has been decided. Their treatment, therefore, is the same as in the case of the officers. The noble and gallant Lord referred to the question of coastguards' pay, of which he did not give me any previous notice. Therefore I am not able to deal with it. If he wishes for an answer upon that matter, perhaps he will be good enough to put a Question on the Paper with which I can deal subsequently.

With regard to the treatment of boys, to which the noble and gallant Lord referred in a previous speech, I promised that I would bring that matter to the notice of the authorities at the Admiralty. This I have done. It is still under consideration, and I am not able to give the noble and gallant Lord any further information upon it to-day. The noble and gallant Lord will see that, in reply to his speech and to his Questions, I have been unable to deal with many of the points in detail, for the simple reason that they are at the present moment the subject of special investigation. But I can assure him that they will be investigated with the utmost sympathy for the class of man whose case he has championed to-day. I am very glad that he paid a tribute to the attitude of the Financial Secretary, which was well deserved The Financial Secretary has, I think, throughout his period of office, which is now a very long one, shown the utmost sympathy with the men of the Navy and the utmost regard to their position, and I am quite certain that when this inquiry is completed and the decisions are announced they will not give the noble and gallant Lord any cause of complaint on the score of their being ungenerous or inconsiderate to the men. And if there be any sense of grievance caused by the failure to consider these questions before, I am quite confident that the decisions will help to remove that unrest.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

My Lords, I think your Lordships, except perhaps those on the Front Government Bench, who have listened to the speech of my noble friend opposite in reply to the Questions on the Paper will have been very disappointed. It is admitted that, after three years of war, these things are still under consideration by a Committee. That is perfectly scandalous. Yet that is given as quite a good reason for putting everything off. There is one advantage in that. We have, now a very efficient and improved Board of Admiralty, which is more likely to take action than the Boards which occupied that position for the first two and a-half years of the war. But I really think that, after three years of war, it is grossly unfair to our sailors who have been serving us so well throughout the war that these things should not have been settled. It has been said that prices have gone up everywhere, that therefore the sailors have to suffer like every one else, and that it is only a temporary matter. But nobody else has suffered in the same way. That argument falls to the ground entirely. My noble friend knows from his own experience that the wages of everybody have gone up very largely during the war; and to meet the point with an argument of that kind is certainly begging the question.

I was very glad that the noble Earl at the end of his speech—because I thought the other part of his speech was very unsympathetic, though, of course, I know that he has to put forward the views of the Department—said he had full sympathy with the cause of the men. I do not want to go into the arguments as to the difference of opinion between my two noble friends, but the Navy has been far too long-suffering. I do not wish to enter into the question as to whether the men have been cheated or been done out of their contract, though I think everybody must admit that they have been extremely meanly dealt with. With regard to the question of commissions, it is said that it would never do to give commissions to the lower deck during the war because there would be too many commissioned officers afterwards. In my opinion the first thing we have to do is to win the war, and then we can see what can be done afterwards. Surely what has been said by the noble Earl is not an answer that should have been given to your Lordships' House. As to the inexperienced men to which my noble friend alluded, I do not, of course, say a word against the civilians. They have been most patriotic and noble in the work they have done, but it is perfectly well known that a large number of inexperienced men have been put in command of certain small vessels for the simple reason that we have not a sufficient supply of experienced men. Of course, numbers of vessels have been lost through nobody's fault. The operations that have been carried out have been very difficult, and the country should be, and I am sure is, grateful to the many brave men who have volunteered for this work; but that is no reason why more commissions should not have been given to the lower deck, where there are many men well fitted to hold them.

As to the pensions question, it seems to me that this is a technical matter. When these questions of calling men up for service were considered and the regulations were laid down, it was never thought for one moment that there would be a war of this kind, in which men would be called up for three, four, or five years. And I think it is not fair to the men, and not doing justice to the Admiralty itself, that it should stick on the technical position of the terms of engagement, even if they happen to be correct. I hope that this Committee—by the way, we are getting rather tired of Committees—will report very soon, because it must be admitted by everybody that the sailors have not had anything like a proportionate increase. As everybody knows, there is not a finer body of men in this country, or a more loyal or devoted body of men, and it has been felt to be the case more and more that those who get the advantages are those who shirk. Therefore I hope that the noble Earl will use his influence with the Admiralty to get this question dealt with as speedily as possible, and in the sympathetic manner which he indicated at the conclusion of his speech.

LORD BERESFORD

My Lords, I believe I have a right of reply, as I have given notice to move a Resolution. Arguments of the character we have heard to-night have been made to me for something like forty years. I have often been called mischievous, and I have often been called unfair, but I have never been charged with want of truth before. I reiterate that in what I said there is nothing mischievous, unfair, or untruthful; and if the 5,000 men in the Navy who are suffering under this disability were polled, they would tell the noble Earl exactly what I have told him to-night, chat they do consider that they have been cheated and robbed.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

It is a question of fact. The noble and gallant Lord is entitled to his opinion, but he does not make it true by repeating it.

LORD BERESFORD

I will show the noble Earl how it is true. He says, quite rightly, that the men are liable to be engaged if there is a war.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

Retained.

LORD BERESFORD

There is not a word in the contract that the men would not receive their pensions after twenty-two years service. That is emphasised by what I pointed out—that the only circumstance in which they are not to receive their pension after twenty-two years service is if they join a foreign fleet and work under another flag. I ask, are the men who ought to have had £63 in the one case and £135 in the other in the three years ever going to get those sums? Of course, they will not get them. They will get the pension which is duo to them at the end of the war, but which they would have got three years before, and for which they now get only 2d. a day. That is where the men think they are being done, and they will be done. I repeat they are bring cheated out of that sum of money, which they ought to have had for these three years. Here you have two men in the same mess, in exactly the same circumstances; they are doing exactly the same duty and are of the same rating. One has received the £63 if he is an able seaman, and the other has not received it because his pension became due—say, a few days after war broke out. In the case of petty officers, two men in the same mess, one has received £135 during the three years, but the other has not received it, and he will not receive it under the present regulations. Who is right, the noble Earl or myself? What I say is the truth. The men have been cheated. What I say further is, the men shall get this money; every shilling shall be paid to them, and it shall be made retrospective. I am very warm about this. The noble Earl has said that I do not tell the truth. You poll the British Navy and see who is telling the truth, whether it is myself or the noble Earl. The feeling on this question is very acute in the Fleet. The argument that the men are to be retained in war—why, of course they are, and they are proud of it. But there is nothing whatever in the contract that the men should not receive their pensions according to agreement after twenty-two years service.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

There is no contract that any man should receive a pension after twenty-two years service. The contract is that a man is liable to be discharged after twenty-two years service, except in case of war.

LORD BERESFORD

The noble Earl says so, but the men regard it as a contract.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

That is not so.

LORD BERESFORD

I beg the noble Earl's pardon. I maintain that it is so. Then he gets up in his place and supports the idea that these men are to be mulcted of that sum of money because they are fighting.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

There is no question of mulcting anybody.

LORD BERESFORD

The men do not get the money because they are fighting.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

They are getting their full pay. A man discharged to pension is not in receipt of any pay. When he is discharged he receives only his pension. But these men are kept in the Service and their pay continues. There is no question of mulcting them of their pensions.

LORD BERESFORD

That is very thin.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

It is true.

LORD BERESFORD

The fact remains that there are two men in the same mess, one having been mulcted of all this money, and the other having received it. Yet the Admiralty get round these Service regulations by such statements as the noble Earl has made. It is not what the men say. I ask noble Lords in this House whether my case is not a strong one. It is like many other cases which I have fought in the other House. These men shall get this money. The noble Earl spoke about not engaging inexperienced people. I will point out one lot. Take the Accountants Branch of the Navy. Look at the people who have been brought in there. A man may be a very useful person in a bank, or in a counting house, or in a shop, but it takes years to understand the Accountants Branch of the Royal Navy properly. He spends a few months with a writer to teach him, and then he is inside an assistant paymaster. That is very unfair and very wrong. I am glad to hear that the question of the wounded men will be looked into, and also other matters. That is the result of agitation. We have seen all these things before. I repeat that the noble Earl is wrong and that I am right about the men being mulcted with regard to their pensions. If this thing is not put right there will be a commotion in the country. We intend to get it put right. With regard to the other remarks of the noble Earl, I am very much obliged to him for what he has told me.

House adjourned at twenty minutes past seven o'clock, till to-morrow, half past three o'clock.