16 April, 1923.]

[Continued.

there used to be a captain, a good many years ago, but it was reduced when the yard was reduced and a commander was put there instead. Now the yard is doing more than it was, and we have put in a captain again.

Mr. Wise.

1191. I did not quite understand what you said about the Geddes Committee. Did you say you were carrying out what was recommended?-I was asked whether a reference was made in the Geddes Committee's Report to the retinues of flagofficers.

1192. Are you carrying out what was recommended by the Committee?-No, the Government decided not to carry out the recommendation about servants.

1193. As per the list you have given in? -That is a particular instance of it.

Mr. Hannon.

1194. Senior Naval officers in charge of Naval yards abroad would have to keep up considerable establishments and keep up a certain position of dignity, and so on?Yes.

1195. In order to do that they must have a certain retinue?—Yes.

1196. In your view, is this the minimum retinue essential for keeping up all the requirements of these officers?-That is the regular retinue for an officer of that rank, wherever he is.

1197. Can you say whether this retinue could be reduced?-As I was saying just now, it would be difficult to reduce an officer's retinue because he happened to be at a particular place.

Colonel Spender Clay.

1198. How many officers are there in the messes at these various places?-There is no mess.

Sir Philip Pilditch.

1199. We heard just now that this particular point had been the subject of comment by the Geddes Committee?-Yes, this is a fraction of it.

1200. You said in answer to another honourable Member that the matter had been gone into and it had been found that no economies in this particular line were possible? Yes.

1201. Is there any memorandum or statement showing why the economies which were suggested by the Geddes

Committee in this particular were not possible?-My recollection is that the paper submitted to Parliament directly after the Geddes Committee's report contained a paragraph on this point, but I would like to confirm that. (After referring.) It is as I supposed; there is a paragraph in the document, White Paper 1587, of 1922, entitled Remarks of the Admiralty on the Interim Report of the Committee on National Expenditure," which deals with this subject on page 6.

1202. We want to know what the Admiralty said.?-There is this paragraph: "In regard to the staffs of Commanders-in-Chief, the Committee has. perhaps excusably, been misled by the use of the old Naval term retinue' and has treated them as being the personal following of the Commander. In reality. by far the greated number of the officers and men included in these staffs are borne for naval duties, which must necessarily be provided for at a port containing a number of Naval establishments, and have nothing to do with the dignity or personal comfort of the Commander-in-Chief."

Chairman.

1203. Is there anything in that document about the dockyards?--No, except that those are retinues too, and it was dealing with retinues generally.

1204. If a Naval officer of a certain rank has a certain retinue it does not matter whether he is in a dockyard or anywhere else--he always has that certain retinue? Yes.

Sir Philip Pilditch.

1205. That paragraph which you have read is merely stating: "We must do it, because we must do it." I asked whether or not the Admiralty had in any shape or form put into writing the reasons why it is not possible to make the economies which the Geddes Committee suggested in this particular. Is there anything more in that White Paper on this question of retinue, or is there any other memorandum which has been prepared?-The recommendation of the Geddes Committee was much more general.

1206. Will you read the next part of the document which deals with it?-This paragraph does not necessarily address itself to the particular point we are on, but it is more general; it deals with all

16 April, 1923.]

[Continued.

retinues: "The possibility of effecting reductions in these staffs, whether Naval or personal, is being carefully looked into, but the paragraph of the Committee's Report which implies that large numbers of men and sums of money are being wasted in maintaining unnecessary pomp and circumstance is entirely misleading."

1207. There is nothing more than that, which is a general statement?-I was wondering whether there had been any specific attempt on the part of the Admiralty by chapter and verse to show that the Geddes Committee was mistaken in the idea that there were economies to be made here. You say there is nothing more?-Nothing more in this paper.

1208. Can you tell us whether the senior naval officer at Bermuda discharges naval duties as well as dockyard duties?Certainly, because the squadron is sometimes away, and, when it is away, he is the senior naval officer.

Mr. Rose.

1209. Does he go away then?—No, but he is responsible if the Commander-inChief is not there, or if no other senior naval officer is there, for the whole of the naval duties in that particular place.

Chairman.

1210. If there is nobody else there?— Yes.

1211. But as a rule there is somebody else there. The squadron goes to sea from time to time.

Mr. Rose.

1212. Is the case of Bermuda singular, and different from any other foreign dockyard?—No, all the foreign yards are the same.

Chairman.

1213. What is the difference between

Chairman.

1214. Is that always so? Yes.

1215. Are there not some of the smaller dockyards where there are no captains? -The Captain of the dockyard is an officer under the Superintendent. If the Superintendent is a captain, there is a Commander in charge of that Department.

1216. You told us the senior naval officers in charge of the dockyards discharge naval duties? Do they appear in the salaries and allowances of officers, and also under this Vote?-No.

1217. Are they paid anything extra for their naval duties ?-No.

Chairman.

1218. Before we ask somebody from the Second Sea Lord's Department to come here to give evidence, will you make a few inquiries and see if you can send an answer to the question which was put with regard to the naval duties?-Yes. I do not think the honourable member who asked the question about it quite appreciates the fact that these are civil appointments, in the main.

Captain Viscount Curzon.

1219. In the main; but naval duties are carried out, and I am very anxious the Committee should not express an opinion on what might be a misunderstanding of the actual duties involved.I think perhaps the best plan would be for me to hand in a report on the amount of entertaining that Superintendents of dockyards might have to do.

1220. There is a decrease in all, and that, I presume, is owing to the reduction in the size of the Navy?-(Sir Vincent Baddeley.) Yes.

1221. What are the appropriations in

aid? Sub-head L. is said to include repayments from other Departments of the Government for supplies of oil-fuel, coal, &c.-Would it be convenient to the Committee to take sub-heads A to J first, because sub-head K is a separate block, dealing with fuel?

Chairman.

1224. The summary of this is on page 100 of the Estimates, and I see it shows a big increase of about £1,800,000?(Sir Vincent Baddeley.) Yes; this is the section which provides the money for the two new battleships.

Mr. Maxton.

1225. Sub-head I is: "Royal Reserve of Merchant Cruisers, &c." for which a sum of £115,000 is put down. What exactly is involved in that payment?£90,000 of it is a subvention under contract to the Cunard Company for maintaining the "Mauretania." Originally the contract was that they should build two ships-the "Lusitania " and the "Mauretania" which were more ex

pensive and more powerful than they would have built for their commercial work, on the understanding that they could be used during the war as armed merchant cruisers. The " "Lusitania was lost, and the total original subvention of £150,000 had consequently to be reduced. It was agreed with the Company that they should have £90,000 for the remainder of the term. The reason it was not half the original total was that the Company undertook that the whole of their fleet should be available for naval work if necessary; therefore the odd £15,000 is the rent for that advantage that the Navy has.

1226. It is a first call for Naval purposes on all Cunard liners for this sum? -Yes.

1227. How long does this subvention continue on the "Mauretania "?-I think it was for twenty years from 1907, but I am not absolutely certain of the date.

Mr. Rose.

1228. Sub-head D is: "Armour for His Majesty's Ships and Vessels,"£1,250,000. Is the whole of that for the

new capital ships?-Yes; the details are given on page 121.

1229. And there is the same analysis on page 121, if not elsewhere, for propelling machinery and auxiliary machinery? Yes.

1230. So that we can get from these estimates exactly the amount that is allocated this year for the two capital ships? -Yes, at page 223 you will find the whole of it set out in detail, under the programme.

1231. What are those two capital ships to cost? I am afraid I have not got that actual figure by me at the moment. On page 223 you will see the expected expenditure up to the 31st of March.

Chairman.

1232. Perhaps you can find that out for us ?-Certainly.

Mr. Rose.] What we certainly know is that they are not paid for in a lump sum but by grants year by year. However, there must be a contract price if they are given out to contract.

1233. Yes, there is a contract price for the hull, and a contract price for the machinery, and for the guns and gun mountings.

1234. Will you find that figure out for use ?-Yes.

Mr. Maxton.

1235. Was this the lowest tender ?-It was the lowest tender.

1236. By a considerable amount?—Yes, by a very considerable amount.

Mr. Charleton.

1237. Could we have a comparative statement showing the cost of work done by contract and the cost of work when done in the dockyards. I should like to know whether there is a saving either way. It is not a thing upon which one could present any kind of statement. We have not built any big ships in the dockyards since before the war. The question

16 April, 1923.]

[Continued.

of the cost of building in the dockyards or by contract was gone into by this Committee or its predecessor in 1913 in great detail.

1238. The gun mountings and that sort of thing appear to be nearly all given out to contract?-Yes, all gun mountings are made by contract.

All

1239. Some appear to be done by the War Department.-There are some small mountings which can be made at Woolwich, but those are the only ones. the important gun mountings required very special machines for their construction, and they are only possessed by the big contractors.

Colonel Stephenson.

1240. As to the Royal Reserve of merchant cruisers, the figure for which is £115,000, how much more will there be to pay?—I am not quite sure what is the date of the end of the contract.

1241. Do you know whether there is another £100,000 to be paid, or less, or more? It is continued for so many years.

1242. Will it figure again next year?— Certainly. I think it has five years more to run, but I am not quite certain.

1243. We do not maintain that reserve in peace time, do we?-Yes, it has been paid every year.

1244. You are paying it off to bring it

to a finish? It was a contract to pay £150,000 a year from the date of the completion of the ships until the term was over; it was, I think, for 20 years.

1245. Does that ship still remain as a reserve ship till the finish? Yes, certainly.

Mr. Wise.

1246. Where do you get your armour from? It is all made by five firms up in the North.

1247. Do they still pay a royalty for it? -I think all the old royalties are extinguished by now.

1248. What conditions are laid down about the armour plate royalties ?-We do not make the armour plate ourselves; it is made for us by contractors, and any royalty that they pay is included in the price that they charge.

1249. Can you explain sub-head H.H. "Payments to contractors in respect of cancellation of orders." Who received that £20,000?-That is only what is called a token sum. We do not know exactly what we may have to pay to compensate contractors for the orders that were cancelled. We have paid a certain amount of compensation, and there is a certain amount more which may have to be paid.

1250. A larger amount than this?-I hope not.

Chairman.

1251. There is a general reduction in this Vote? (Sir Vincent Baddeley.) Yes. 1252. As to the salaries and allowances of superintending officers and others, we have not any figures as to what happened in 1914-15?-A paper was handed in.

1253. I suppose there is a general increase in all that?-Yes; all these are civil officers.

1254. Then they are paid by salary and bonus, and the bonus is given at the end of the Vote?—Yes.

1255. Is the bonus dependent upon the Civil Service bonus?-It is the same bonus.

1256. And it goes down when that bonus goes down?-Yes.

1257. The biggest amount in this Estimate is under subhead B. "New works, additions, and alterations." I see under the heading "Abadan" there is a sum of £4,400 for а residence for the Inspector of Oil Fuel. I suppose you had to build that?-Abadan is in Persia, where the Persian oil comes from.

Mr. Wise.

1258. Do you buy all your oil fuel from the Anglo-Persian Oil Company?-Not all, but we buy a great deal from there.

Chairman.

1259. I do not know what mosquito netting costs, but £5,500 seems a great

16 April, 1923.]

deal to pay for mosquito netting to residences in Burmuda. Are there many residences?-A former Commander-inChief on the North American station was taken ill and died, it was said, owing to the insanitary conditions and through having mosquito bites. The residents petitioned that they might have mosquito netting fixed to all the residences, because it was said-and the medical officers confirmed the statement-that there was considerable danger to health from the bites of mosquitoes.

1260. I suppose that netting is only fixed to the residences of naval officers. You do not fix it for everybody there?All the residences of the officers in the yard, some civil and some naval.

1261. Those are all officers employed by His Majesty's Government?-Yes, under the Navy.

Mr. Marton.

1262. Does that include all British residents? No, it means the dockyard officers and the senior naval officers' residences, and half a dozen other blocks of houses.

Chairman.

a

1263. Under the heading of Chatham I see there is an item "Bathing and wash places, and cooking arrangements for crews of ships in dock." £14,000 seems a good deal? That is when ship comes into dock she has to have all the ordinary services knocked off-water cannot be turned on, and so on-and the crews, still living on board, have to go ashore for all those matters; so it has been arranged to put up washhouses and cooking places along the dock side.

1264. It covers a lot of men, I suppose?-Yes; it is really part of what is called the Welfare Scheme.

1265. I see the new works are mostly for additional storage accommodation for oil? Yes, nearly all for that, or for what are called "Welfare" items in order to improve the conditions of the personnel. The provision of bathing and washing places is one matter, and No. 6 is another, namely, baths for C.P.O.'s, and so on, at the Royal Naval Barracks.

Sir Philip Pilditch.

1266. These matters come again in other places on nearly every Vote; they

[Continued.

come in Devonport, for instancer-Yes, it comes to a good deal altogether. Devonport is on page 138.

Colonel Spender Clay.

1267. Are they doing this work in all the dockyards?-Yes, as a general policy. There was a petition from the Fleet, under what was called the Welfare Scheme, that something should be done for them.

1268. Do you know what is the total amount being spent in this way?-I have not added it up.

1269. But the policy is to do it in every dockyard?—Yes, at each of the three big dockyards.

1270. And also at places like Hong Kong and Malta?-No; we are not doing it anywhere, I think, except at home.

Colonel Stephenson.

1271. Was not it singularly inopportune, when there is a shortage of money and Estimates are so high, to choose this moment for doing that work? It was equally necessary last year, I suppose?. The Welfare Committee which dealt with petitions from the personnel had a very large number of requests sent up.

1272. There has been no deduction in pay for it. It is really supplying what the men can obtain for themselves at places like Chatham. There at the Corporation Baths they could get baths in the ordinary way?-Yes, but when a ship comes into dock the men are living on board, and no taps can be run, and no cooking can be done. They are right inside the dockyards, and about one mile or more away from the town. The idea was to make it more convenient for them.

1273. I think it is quite admissible for such a thing to be done, but the moment chosen for doing it seems to be very inopportune, because the call for it was just the same last year as now?-That is true, but these were in last year's estimates.

1274. Now they are getting much more pay than they formerly got, and you add these arrangements to the increased pay? -This is only one or two of the things asked for out of many.

1275. On page 136 I see there is a note (d) which says: "Total estimate reduced from £28,000". Is that £14,000 on page 136 reduced from £28,000 for bathing and washing places and cooking arrangements for crews of ships in dock at Chatham? That was in last year, and