11 April, 1923.]

Mr. Hannon.

1131. I suppose the Geddes Committee has been pretty carefully through this particular branch of the Admiralty accounts-Vote 8, and the administrative side of the establishment at the dockyards, and so on?-I should not like to say that. The Geddes Committee, of course, had an enormous amount of work to do in a very little time, and they made a general survey of Navy Votes, but I should not like to say whether or not they went closely into the numbers at the dockyards.

1132. They made no recommendation anywhere with regard to the reduction of the personnel in dockyard administration? They recommended the abolition of Wei-hai-wei, which has been accomplished in another way. They recommended that Pembroke should be closed, which has not yet been done. They made general recommendations as regards this question of retinue and the servants of Flag Officers in general, which have been partially adopted by the Board. They made no other general recommendations, so far as I remember, as to the staffing of the dockyards.

1133. The suggestion has been made that a great number of officers associated with the dockyards might be disposed of altogether. Is it not a fact that the Admiral Superintendents are responsible in the respective yards for the whole direction and management of each yard? -That is so.

1134. The persons who are described on page 2 of the Paper which has been handed in as Managers of the Constructive Department, concentrate entirely on constructive work, I suppose?-Certainly.

1135. All other heads of departments shown under "naval superintendence have to concentrate on the particular branch of work in which they are gaged? Yes.

en

[Continued.

"Naval Store Department as well as on page 5. Why is it put in over again? -Those are the foreign yards.

1138. Why do we want five naval store officers at the foreign yards? Is it for the same reason that there are many more stores. There are five naval store officers and seven deputy naval store officers, that is 12 in all, against seven in 1914-15?—It means that in two yards which were previously under the charge of deputy naval store officers the work has increased in the yards and we have put it under the charge of naval store officers, that is to say, we have improved the position of the men in charge at those yards.

1139. The increase has been very great? -It means that the men would be getting £550-£700 instead of £350-£500. That is the extent of the improvement. 1140. Are they naval officers?-No, these are civilians. They get a bonus.

1141. Do they get a bonus in addition to this salary?-Yes, in addition to the £550-700.

1142. The cost has been increased from £4,600 for a smaller number, to £9,100. -The scales of pay remain exactly the same. There has been no improvement as regards the pay of the naval store officers. The work at some of the foreign yards has increased and we had to put it in charge of a more responsible rank.

1143. Then the increase is owing to the increase in the number?-The increase is due to the increase in numbers.

1144. And that, you say, you cannot avoid? It is due to increase in the work at the foreign yards. The tendency is for more ships to be abroad than were abroad in 1914 and therefore there is more naval store work on the stations.

Major Sir Archibald Sinclair. 1145. I understood you to say in reply to another Honourable Member in reference to National Health Insurance and National Unemployment Insurance that they were and respectively £40,000 £50,000?—Yes, for Health the figure is £40,000 and for unemployment £50,000. 1146. I cannot see those figures anywhere in the Estimate?-They are on page 106, under sub-head B-the labour sub-head.

D 4

11 April, 1923.]

1147. What is this figure of £957 brought forward at the top of that same page? That is for the very lowest batch of civilian clerical employee. Some of them come under the provisions of the

O.B.E.

[Continued.

Chairman.

1149. You were going to put in a paper with regard to the retinues of Senior Naval Officers?-(Sir Vincent Baddeley) This is a statement of the retinues of Senior Naval Officers at yards abroad1914/5 and 1923/24. At Gibraltar the Admiral Superintendent had one coxswain and five stewards and cooks in 1914/15, and he now has one coxswain and five stewards and cooks. At Malta the Admiral Superintendent had one COXswain, and five stewards and cooks in 1914/15, and he has the same now. At Hongkong the Commodore-in-charge in 1914/15, had one coxswain and four stewards and cooks, and he has the same now. At Bermuda the Commander-in

charge in 1914/15 had one coxswain, and two stewards and cooks; at present there is a Captain-in-charge instead of a Commander, and he has one coxswain and four stewards and cooks. At Wei-hai-wei the Senior Naval Executive Officer in 1914/15 had one coxswain, and there is one coxswain there now. The total in 1914/15 was 21; the total now is 23. The number is the same as it was last year, although only 22 were shown in the Estimates, because there was one vacancy at the beginning of the year.

1150. The Estimates give 23 against 22, and on page 108 the charge is given as £3,902 as against £3,443 in 1922/23; that is an increase of £460 for this one extra Coxswain, steward, or cook. Does that mean that they have all received higher

16 April, 1923.]

[Continued.

wages, or does it mean that one of these three grades gets £460? The actual emoluments vary according to the rating of the actual coxswain employed. A coxswain is chosen by the officer in charge of the establishment; he generally takes a man whom he has known in the service. Some of them are Chief Petty Officers, and some are Petty Officers, and there is a slight variation in their pay according to which their rating is. However, that is all stated in this return which I can hand in.

(The return was handed in, see Appendix.)

1151. Do I understand that, if there is a Commander-in-charge of a dockyard and that Commander is replaced by a Captain, then all the coxswains, stewards, and cooks get higher wages, because it is a Captain instead of a Commander?-No; it is due to the number of cooks and stewards he is allowed. He now has four instead of two.

1152. He gets extra two?—Yes.

1153. Why does he want two extra ?That is the regular allowance of servants for each officer according to rank.

1154. Does he have two extra stewards, or two extra coxswains?-Two stewards and cooks.

Captain Viscount Curzon.

1155. Is it not a fact that when a Captain is appointed the number of the staff is increased, and the allowance is made according to the number. If there are so many people to provide for, there are so many cooks and stewards laid down for it? Yes.

Mr. A. M. Samuel.

1160. I know nothing about naval matters, and therefore I am somewhat confused on this subject. When you say "steward and cook" do you mean a man performs at option the dual capacity of being a steward or being a cook, or do the "steward and cook " mean two different individuals?-The cook is not the same man as the steward.

Chairman.

1161. They are two different people?Yes.

Colonel Assheton Pownall.

1162. With regard to Bermuda, I understand the position now is that you have a Captain in command rather than a Commander, and that involves an increase of two stewards; that is to say the staff has gone up from two to four stewards and cooks?-Yes.

at

1163. Is it not possible for that job to be done, as it was before the war, by a Commander, and SO keep the staff down ?-The reason for the change Bermuda is that before the war Bermuda was used very little indeed by the Fleet; we had hardly any ships in the North America and West Indies Station. Now there is a considerable number of ships at the station and the dockyard is used a great deal more; consequently the Admiralty decided to appoint an officer of higher rank for the more extensive duties that would have to be performed.

1164. Do you happen to remember whether the Geddes Committee recommended anything on the subject of these officers' retinues?-The Geddes Committee did comment on retinues generally.

1165. Has it been possible to effect any economies with regard to those retinues as suggested in that report?-Not as far as servants allowed are concerned.

1166. No economies are possible?—No.

16 April, 1923.]

and

[Continued.

stewards and cooks." Would it not be as well to subdivide them up and say how many are actually stewards and how many are actually cooks?-I cannot tell you that now.

1169. I should also like to know the number of officers with which they have to deal. You have put in a return stating that certain officers at Wei-hai-wei, Hongkong, and so on, have so many stewards and so many cooks allotted to them. It seems to me your return should also include the number of officers for whom those stewards and cooks are required, in order that the Committee may see whether the allowance of stewards and cooks is excessive or not. This Committee is obviously in some difficulty in coming to a conclusion whether or not an excessive allowance of stewards and cooks is allotted. Could you not give us some idea as to the number of officers who are being catered for in each particular case?These officers are the Superintendents of the yards abroad.

1170. With regard to the Geddes Report the impression created in the public mind is that an Admiral has a retinue attending upon him, and the more senior the officer the more extensive the retinue is. That is true; but what it not realised by the public is that the retinue is not for the personal pleasure, delectation, or enhancement of the dignity of the officer, but because the more senior the officer the greater his staff, and it is for his staff of officers that the stewards and cooks are necessarily required. We want to get at the number of the staff in each particular case, in order to see whether the allowance of stewards and cooks is excessive or not.-In a civil establishment in a dockyard there is no personal staff under the Superintendent in the same way as a Flag Officer has a Flag Captain, a Secretary, a Flag Commander, and so on, on board ship; but he is, of course, responsible for entertaining various people under his command, whether civilians or others.

1171. What we want to get is some information which will give us an idea of the amount of entertaining which such officer necessarily has to perform, and the number of people, if any, on his staff who have to be messed with him?--There are none who mess with him in a dockyard.

1172. Then we want to find out how much entertaining he is compelled to carry out?-I do not think it would be possible to give an exact answer to that. The officer has to keep up the dignity of the Service.

Chairman.

1173. I understand the witness to say that where it is the case of an Admiral Superintendent in a dockyard he has not a staff under him, as he would have if he were an Admiral commanding a station where he has officers and other people under him whom he has to entertain. That point does not arise in the case of a dockyard Department. That is correct.

1174. But it does arise at a station where there is a Flag Officer?-Yes.

Captain Viscount Curzon.

1175. You say there is a certain amount of entertaining to be done by the Flag Officer commanding a dockyard, and with regard to such a place as Hongkong and Wei-hai-wei one can quite understand it. What I want to get at exactly is how much that entertaining amounts to, so that we may ascertain whether the allowance of stewards and cooks is excessive or not. It is entirely discretionary.

1176. If that is the case, I suggest we should ask for the attendance of somebody from the Second Sea Lord's Department who would be able to give us an exact idea. The Second Sea Lord's Department is charged with the supervision of personnel, and, before this Committee comes to any conclusion on the subject of personnel, I think somebody from that Department should come and give us a definite idea of the actual amount of entertaining work which has to be done.

Chairman.] Whether we call anybody on that subject is a matter for the Com mittee to decide upon afterwards.

Mr. Rose.

1177. These senior Naval Officers im charge are performing exactly the same functions or supposed functions as the Admiral Superintendents in the home: dockyards. They are.

16 April, 1923.]

[Continued.

1178. That is as opposed to being, whether they are or not, the managing directors of the concern?—Yes.

1179. There are four senior Naval Officers in charge, two Flag Lieutenants, and one Medical Officer in charge of Naval establishments. Between them all they appear to have 25 servants; that is an average of rather over four a piece. Can you tell us exactly for what the coxwain is wanted for the Admiral of a dockyard?-His primary duty is to be in charge of the steam boat, which is allotted to the Flag officer.

1180. A dockyard does not lend itself to much work of that kind; it must be practically nominal. These men are occupying the same positions relatively as directors or managers of ordinary private establishments. Do you know of any private establishments, such as Vickers at Barrow or Earles at Hull, where the manager has a retinue of personal servants under him.

Does the Admiralty consider it necessary that these men should have a retinue of servants, except such servants, of course, as they choose to pay for, if they need them, in the pursuit or discharge of their duties? -The manager of a place like Vickers' works at Barrow would have servants whom he would pay for out of his own pocket from the salary which he gets for being manager at Barrow. The system is not quite the same in the Navy, where all officers are allowed so many servantseither actual men, or an allowance in lieu-out of Navy Estimates as part of their emoluments. The salary of the manager at the Barrow works would be taken to cover such expenses as domestic servants.

1181. We know it is so, but the question I want to put is, why is it so, and what is the necessity for it. These men are apparently getting ample salaries, and, if they want personal servants, apart altogether from their body servants, surely they are entitled to pay for it. They are discharging a certain function, that is the function of superintending dockyard work, and they have ceased to he naval officers to that extent, although some of them I suppose are men who hold flag rank. Why are these officers allowed servants? The answer is the same as would be given to the question on Vote 1, that is to say, servants or allowances in

lieu of servants are part of the recognised emoluments of officers of the Naval Service.

1182. There is no other reason for it?~ No other reason for it.

1183. Supposing this item of £3,902 were eliminated, do you think it would have any very detrimental effect on the dockyard services abroad?—It means that the particular officer who is chosen out of the Active List of the Navy to hold the place would be so much worse off than his brother-officer who was not sent to that place. The system is to treat all officers the same, to pay them the same, and to give them the same allowances, wherever they are serving.

1184. Then all these officers of equal rank in every department of the Service have an average of four servants?-I am not quite sure what the average works out at, but there is a regular scale.

1185. There are four senior Naval officers in charge, two flag-lieutenants, and one medical officer, and there are 23 servants in their retinues, in addition to which there are two servants to flaglieutenants (naval ratings)?-Yes, it is exactly the same.

1186. That is twenty-five servants between six officers?-Yes, just the same as would happen if they were serving anywhere else in the Navy. The average looks high here because the officers are mostly senior officers.

1187. Every officer according to his rank has the same number of servants. Then there is nothing excessive in this allocation of servants to these dockyards?—No.

Colonel Stephenson.

1188. I understand the increase in 192324 over 1922-23 is due to the fact that it includes officers of more senior rank. Why are officers of senior rank employed for a job which can be equally well done by officers of junior rank?—It is only at Bermuda that a more senior officer has been employed, and I gave the reason.

1189. It might equally happen at other places. Why are officers of senior rank and at increased cost put into jobs which could be filled by officers of a junior rank? -That has only happened at Bermuda, for the particular reason which I gave just now.

1190. Then it is not a regular thing and not likely to happen again?-At Bermuda