14 March, 1923.]

Colonel Woodcock.

66

145. Talking about comparison in civil life with an officer in the Navy, would it not be a fair thing to take the 'Worcester" and Conway," where boys are trained for a career in the Merchant Service, and in some way get a comparison at the various ages of officers in the Merchant Service and officers in the Navy? That would come in the rates of pay of the Mercantile Marine, which I have been already asked to get, but 1 would say as regards that, that a comparison between an officer in the Merchant Service and an officer in the Navy is not very valuable because the responsibilities are so totally different; you would never get a young officer in the Mercantile Marine in a destroyer

146. What career has a boy got if he enters civil life in the Mercantile Marine, and also in the Navy ?-The rates of pay from entry to the time he commanded one of the big liners would give you what you wanted.

Chairman.

147. Have you got the Paper which was circulated to the Committee? Honourable members have got all these Papers. If you will turn to the first page there are one or two questions on it, and that raises another point, which I will deal with in a moment. On that page you give the pay of the one Adjutant-General£1,500 in 1914-15, and then you give in 1922-23 his pay in that year. When I look further on I do not find that the pay in 1914-15 is given in the other cases. Is that because it would entail too much trouble is that the reason in a large number of the cases?-There is no other salary paid out of Vote I except that of the Adjutant-General.

148. We will deal with that for the moment. The Adjutant-General got £1,500 a year, and he is now raised to £2,100: Why is that?-That was part of the increase of 1919, where officers of the rank of rear-admiral, or major-general in the case of the Adjutant-General, in charge of Departments of this sort, got a consolidated salary of £2,100 a year.

149. There was no chance of a rearadmiral leaving the Service?-His pay was raised; the other is the pre-War rate of pay which was considered insufficient in 1919.

41314

[Continued.

150. We had got a good many good rear-admirals at that rate of pay for a number of years?-The pay of the Navy was raised generally, and a major-general of the Marines and a rear-admiral of the Navy could not be left out of the increase; their substantive pay was raised by 60 per cent.

151. There might be some argument for raising the pay of a man getting, say, 30s. a week, especially if he had to provide his own living, but the same argument does not apply to a man with £1,500 a year. It meant in the one case that the man could not live, and in the other that the man had to make some sacrifice, as we all have had to do.-It was felt that for a man in the position of a general officer £1,500 a year was too small a rate of pay.

152. Then we come to two quartermasters, and they seem to have gone up about 150 per cent., from £438 to £1,132?—Yes, the quartermaster did get a substantial rise in pay under the 1919 revision.

153. It is a very large increase it is quite 150 per cent. Do they get food too? No, that is consolidated; it includes lodging allowance and provision allow

ance.

154. Then a little further down one Inspector of Naval Recruiting who had £800 has been raised to £1,576. That is practically double; if it had been £1,600 it would have been double.-That again includes lodging allowance and allowance in lieu of provisions.

155. Was that not included in the £800 ?-Yes, but the allowances for those two particular items before the war were extraordinarily low; they could not afford to lodge or make any attempt to feed themselves on them.

156. If you look at the total of the pay under "Director of Naval Recruiting before the War it was £1,237 and there Now there are still were three officers. three officers and it has gone up to £2,926? Yes.

157. That is again 150 per cent. Was it necessary to do that?-Those are dependent on the rates of pay, and they are fixed until 1st July, 1924, and will be revised next year.

Colonel Spender-Clay.

158. I take it the Adjutant-General of Marines gets a house?-No, he is at the Admiralty.

B

159. Those are all at the Admiralty?— Yes. The Director of Naval Recruiting is not actually at the Admiralty, but he has an office in London.

Mr. Pennefather.

a

160. On the first page in 1922-23 there were 17 appointments costing £7,666, and in 1923-24 the same number, 17, is down on this copy as costing £6,757 or diminution of £909, but on adding up the figures I find there is a clerical error apparently, and obviously 17 people each drawing the same salary as in 1922-23 come to the same total of £7,666?-The figures have been transposed, I think; it should be £7,657.

161. Therefore there is no diminution in 1923-24 as compared with 1922-23 under that heading. I also think that perhaps these other figures want looking into.

Chairman.

162. Is there anybody who can add up in the Admiralty? I think this is a copyist's error; we were given very little time to get this out.

Mr. Pennefather.] May we have it put on the record that that shows there is not a diminution? It is £7,657 as against £7,666.

Chairman.] That makes the last figure £10,668 as against £9,668.

Mr. Pennefather.] That is right.

Colonel Woodcock.

163. You mentioned about recruiting, but in 1914 there was an Inspector and an Assistant Inspector and the ratio between their salaries is about right, but when we come to this year you get £1,500 and £1,000. Do you not think that a much junior officer could be the Deputy Director? You have got the Director at a very good salary; do you not think that a junior officer could be Deputy Director and save a very large sum?--I think it will answer your question when I say that the Assistant to the Inspector before the war was a retired officer and you will see I note, that he got £250 in addition to retired pay. Now we have been employing active service officers because we have had too many, and the rank of that Deputy Director is only Major.

[Continued.

164. My point is that there are two officers there approximately very near each other in salary in comparison with what they were before, and a junior officer as Deputy Director would be able to carry out the work under his senior?—— As regards comparison between the two. to get the pre-war figure you have to add the retired pay to that £250 and you would probably find the difference between the Inspector and the Assistant Inspector was very much the same as at the present moment.

Chairman.

165. Has the Director of Naval Recruiting anything to do?—He has; this is only the Headquarters Staff. When I spoke about recruiting not being brisk, I meant at the out stations.

166. As we are reducing the number of men, and as I understand you do get recruits as boys, what has the Director of Naval Recruiting to do when you are not recruiting? I think it is quite true that this last year he has not had much to do, but next year we shall be recruiting again.

167. I hope that will not be taken as a reason for advancing his salary.

Mr. Hannon.

to

168. Sir Charles, is it necessary retain the machinery for recruiting even in times when recruiting is being done?— It is necessary to retain the recruiting machinery; if you broke it down it would take I do not know how long to set it up again. You cannot improvise recruiting machinery.

169. In point of fact the efficiency of the Navy depends on the continuity of expert service?—Yes.

170. Would it not be a very serious responsibility for the Navy to undertake to do away with any particular branch of its organisation even when that branch is not doing effective work? You could not do it if you foresaw the possibility of requiring the machinery to work in the course of months or a year.

171. On this question of the increase of the remuneration of the Adjutant-General, are not the responsibilities of the Adjutant-General considerably increased since the war period?-He has a very much less number of officers and men to deal with, of course; the Marines have gone down

from 16,000 to 9,000, but I should not think his responsibilities have decreased at all; in fact, like the responsibilities of everybody at the head of a Service of this nature, they have probably increased. The difficulty and the variety of training that has to be carried out and the amount of thinking he has to do now, having to make bricks without straw for one thing, make it very difficult.

172. In point of fact has not the defence organisation become much more complex since the war and officers in the responsible position of the Adjutant-General have a much heavier burden on their shoulders?—I do not think the AdjutantGeneral has anything to do with the defence question.

173. He is part of the whole machinery of naval defence?-But he would not deal with that question at all.

Mr. Wise.

174. Is there more to do in the Royal Marine Office in 1923-24 compared with 1914-15? You have an increase of three there?-May I ask the Director of Establishments to reply to that? (Mr. Evans) The number of clerks has been increased and the number of warrant officers. They have had a great deal more work to do latterly; I do not know exactly how it compares at the present moment, but there is no doubt that additional work has been thrown on that office since 1914.

175. Since the Armistice has there been more?-Not since the Armistice, but since 1914. The comparison is with the year 1914.

[Continued.

178. The higher you put the pay, I suppose, the higher the pension would be? Yes, but it does not follow that his pension is increased in the same proportion as his pay or a different proportion..

Mr. Harmsworth.

179. I presume the number from 1914 to 1917 went up owing to demobilisation?-It was far above that during demobilisation.

180. During 1921-22 I presume there was a much greater staff?-He had a bigger staff then, and at the present moment there is considerable reorganisation going on in the Royal Marines which has not been worked out yet, and that undoubtedly causes a good deal of extra work.

now

Mr. Rose.

181. In 1914-15 you had an Assistant Inspector at £250 a year, and there is a Deputy-Director apparently occupying the same position and may I ask, if he is the same person, whether he is performing the same functions as in 1914, because he is now getting £1,070? I thought I dealt with that, Mr. Chairman; I pointed out that before the war, as the note shows, he was a retired officer and he was allowed to draw his retired pay in full and got this salary on the top of it. He is not the same individual, because the present Deputy-Director is a Major on the active list.

182. May I ask if you can tell me what the amount of his salary and his retired pay would make together I have not got it in my head, but I can get it.

to

183. Would it together amount £500 a year, do you think?-I think it is a little more.

Chairman.] I think the witness said that if you added the retired pay you would find there was the same difference in 1914-15 between the AssistantInspector and the Inspector of Recruiting as there is now between the DeputyDirector and the Director of Naval Recruiting, but he will get the exact pay for you if you wish it. You can get that, Sir Charles?

Mr. Rose.] What I want to know is this: If in 1914 we could get a certain B 2

14 March, 1923.]

office discharged apparently satisfactorily for £250, what excuse there can be, or what defence can be made for now paying an officer four times that salary for discharging the same duties?

Chairman.

184. That is not four times, because you have to deduct the retired pay, whatever it was, before you can come at the increase; but I understood the answer to be perhaps I had better not say that, but if you ask me it is because the Director got an increase that the other man got an increase too. No; it is because every officer in the Naval Service, as in the other Services, got his pay raised in 1919. The Deputy-Director, being a Major of Marines, gets a Major of Marines pay and allowances, and this £1,062 represents the pay and allowances of an officer under the 1919 scale. The increase is probably something like 100 per cent., just double what it was before the war.

185. Would it be very much trouble to find out the retired pay?-No, I can find that out.

Mr. Rose.] I want to get it put in the form of a question as to why in these times of financial stringency these offices cannot be discharged for some pay which reasonably approximates to what was paid for them before the war.

Chairman.

186. I think the witness has given that answer; we may or may not agree with it, but I think the witness's answer is that the pay of all officers was increased in 1919. That is, I understand, what the witness says? And is fixed until the 1st July, 1924.

187. I think we must take that answer. Mr. Maxton.] But he has not told us why an active officer is now required when

a

retired officer previously performed these functions.

Chairman.] I did not understand, Mr. Rose to ask that; do I understand, Mr. Rose, that you want to know why, instead of having a Deputy-Director who has not got retired pay, they did not put in somebody who had retired pay? Is that what you wanted to know?

Mr. Rose.] Why not continue the office of Assistant-Inspector which carries with it a salary of £250, instead of putting in an officer with a larger sum?

[Continued.

Chairman.] Before, in 1914, the Assistant-Inspector was a gentleman who had retired pay, and therefore his pay was rather lower on account of his having retired pay. Now I understand Mr. Rose wants to know why you did not get a retired man and make him DeputyDirector.

Mr. Rose.] If this office was worth £250 a year to the State

Chairman.] He may have retired altogether; he may have been an old man. Mr. Rose.] He discharged the office, and got £250 a year for it.

Colonel Assheton Pownall.

188. At first blush there would appear to be an economy by getting a retired officer, but, having a number of superfluous officers, you would first of all have to axe" this gentleman and re-employ him when he got his pension at £500 instead of £250, so that there would be no economy at all.-It would come to more than you gave the retired officer.

Mr. Somerville.] This point was asked before regarding the increase in the number of clerks from six in 1914 to eight in 1922, and the same number in 1923-24. I do not see the necessity for the increase of staff.

Chairman.

189. I do not know that that question was asked.-I think that question was asked, and the Director of Establishments said that he personally inspected that work, and the work had very much increased above what it was before the war at Headquarters.

190. The question was asked, and the answer is that the work had increased.— When we settle down to normal times we hope it will be capable of reduction.

Mr. Marton.

191. I would like to ask this. I notice in going down all this list that as between 1922/23 and 1923/24 there are only two fortunate persons who will have an increase of salary, the Assistant AdjutantGeneral at the Royal Marine Office, who will get about £90 a year more, and the Chief Writer at the Naval Recruiting Office, who will get an increase of £1. Are these due to the operations of some scale? The increase in the Assistant Adjutant-General's salary would be that

[Continued.

he gets an increment of 5s. a day on reaching a certain seniority; for instance, he will get-I do not know what his figure is, but £3 a day would be his rate of pay if he were a junior lieutenantcolonel, and on reaching three years' seniority he would get a rise of 58. a day, and all that that means is that he has got more senior during the year and he will get an increment. As to the Chief Writer, I do not know how he gets the extra £1. It is a daily rate.

Sir Philip Pilditch.

192. I gather that this arose in consequence of some general arrangement come to in 1919. Are they in the nature of bonus or are they substantive rises of salary? These are naval rates of pay with the exception of the AdjutantGeneral, and allowances which were revised in 1919 and hold good until July, 1924.

193. When there will be a revision ?That is so.

194. Over what proportion of these salaries which have been about doubled will that revision run?-20 per cent. of the salaries.

Colonel Assheton Pownall.

195. They cannot be decreased more than 20 per cent. ?-No, only 20 per cent. is liable to decrease.

Sir Philip Pilditch.

196. 20 per cent. is liable to decrease according to the cost of living?—Or in

crease.

197. In fact, 20 per cent. of these salaries will be subject to increase or decrease owing to the cost of living; the balance of 80 per cent. is really the substantive increments?-80 per cent. is the fixed rate of pay.

198. They will not be subject, as all other branches of the Civil Service which receive bonus increases are, to any decrease? I think perhaps we are not quite looking at the point in the same way; the 20 per cent. is not 20 per cent. of the increase which was given, but it was 20 per cent. of the whole and the other 80 per cent. is fixed.

199. The other 80 per cent. of the whole, which includes the greater part of the increase, is fixed?-The answer to your question is that the Government decision in 1919 which was announced

41314

was that 20 per cent. of the whole was to be considered the increase due to the cost of living.

200. And that would be subject to revision in 1924 ?-They are exactly in the same position as anybody else who gets a bonus.

201. So far as 20 per cent. is concerned?-The Government said that 20 per cent. was the only part of their salary due to the increased cost of living.

202. So far as 20 per cent. is concerned there may be a decrease or an increase, but as to the rest, that has become-That is the basic salary.

203. Who came to the arrangement referred to in 1919?-There were two Committees of Naval Officers who sat, one in the Grand Fleet or two in the Grand Fleet, and one called the Halsey Committee which sat in London. The reports of those Committees then came under the review of a Sub-Committee of the Board of Admiralty, and they then came under the review of a Committee appointed by the Government with the late Minister of Education in the Chair, and they were then considered by the Cabinet and decided.

204. Settled by the Government after receipt of reports from the Departments? -Yes, after receipt of the report from this Committee of the Government.

Mr Arthur Michael Samuel.

205. You said that 20 per cent. of the increase depended on the cost of living. What were the dates on which the two comparisons were made, or rather the one comparison? In July, 1919, the Government gave their decision.

206. I have not conveyed my question to you properly: There is 20 per cent. increase on the cost of living? No, not 20 per cent. increase, but 20 per cent. of the whole new rate of salary. May I make it quite clear? The Rear-Admiral's rate of pay was increased from £3 to £5 a day; of the £5, 20 per cent. is £1, and therefore although he had an increase of £2, £1 only was to be considered as due to the cost of living and the other £1 was due to the rate of pay whose revision was long overdue.

207. As to the cost of living point, what are the dates which were brought in for the comparison of rise or fall? The cost-of-living increase as compared with what date? I think something like

B 3