16 April, 1923.]

[Continued.

1278. Is it the view of the Admirality that this is a suitable place for the storage of oil?-Yes, it is one of our principal depots in England and Scotland.

1279. What is the payment of £3,000 for dredging berth at Old Kilpatrick?That is because the water was too shallow alongside the oil station, and we had to dredge deeper in order to get ships up. 1280. That is for your oil carriers?Yes.

1281. Are the Clyde Trust not responsible for keeping the river in a navigable state?-I think the River is quite navigable, but this is by the shore. The Channel is all right, but the water alongside the shore where these tanks are was too shallow to allow the ships come alongside. It was not part of the responsibility of the Clyde Trust to make the river deep for the whole width of it.

:

1282. On

Mr. Penny.

these typed documents which have been handed in I notice four senior Armament Supply Officers have been done away with, and in their place there is an extra Assistant Superintendent and three extra Armament Supply Officers, the net result in expense being an additional charge of £983. Why is that necessary? (Sir Vincent Baddeley). There is a new factory at Holton Heath for making cordite, and there is a Superintendent who was not provided in 1914; he also has an Assistant for experimental work.

1283. For making cordite, do you say? -Yes, for the Naval ammunition.

1284. I thought Gretna was the establishment for that.-Gretna was the establishment built during the war for army cordite.

1285. And not for the cordite for the Navy?-No; it is different.

1286. Do we maintain two establishments, one for the Army and one for the Navy? I understand Gretna has been abolished altogether.

1287. I do not think it has been abolished? Or it is going to be. At Holton Heath down in Dorsetshire we have built a factory for the manufacture

of Naval cordite, and that is being kept as a permanency instead of buying cordite, as we did before, from contractors, the main reason being that we wished to be quite sure about the safety of it.

1288. There was a 66 Shipping master in 1922/23 costing £260 a year, but I see he has been done away with this year. Is there anybody who does his duties now?He has been transferred from Vote 9 to Vote 12 where his pay is provided for on page 168 of the Estimates.

1289. What is the cost of that work now if it is put under some other Department? -It comes under the Headquarters Department of the Director of Armament Supplies.

1290. Does it cost the same, or more, or how much? I think he has assigned the duties to one of his other officers, but I am not quite certain what it costs.

1291. On page 2 of the typewritten paper which was handed in I see there are still 29 foremen, when 15 were sufficient in 1914/15. Are we doing more work now? -We are doing a great deal more work, because not only have we established an entirely new factory at Holton Heath for making cordite, but we have got depots, which did not exist before the war, for

16 April, 1923.]

mines at Wrabness near Harwich, at Frater near Portsmouth, and a big new ammunition depot at Crombie near Rosyth, which was only begun in 1914, and another at Bandeath near Stirling.

1292. As regards the cordite factory at Holton Heath, does it turn out all you require, or could it turn out more than you require? They turn out all we require now, and they could expand and turn out practically all we require in a normal war.

material in

1293. That would be a increase?-Yes; they are only working I think at about half-speed now.

1294. On page 4 of the typewritten statement which has been handed in I see there is an increase of four in the number of assistant inspectors of Naval Ordnance, involving an additional sum of over £3,000? (Captain Norbury): That is for the new construction, to inspect all the guns, ammunition, etc. required for the new capital ships. All the armament stores being ordered from the trade require inspectors to carry out inspection.

1295. You require four more inspectors? -Yes. An inspector is given to each district, and you must have the districts mapped out to provide for the inspection.

1296. Then there is a Chief Examiner of Naval Ordnance Work, not borne on this year's estimates, but apparently in his place there is a lieutenant costing £244 more?-(Sir Vincent Baddeley): The actual officer in charge of this department I have not been able to get here to-day. If you like to defer the questions until the next meeting, he can be here. I do not quite know the answer to these details. (Captain Norbury). The inspection is outside my province when you go into details, and I had better not answer I think.

1297. Which department is supposed to know about these things (Sir Vincent Baddeley). The fact is, we have gone fast to-day that I have not been able to get here the Chief Inspector of Naval Ordnance to deal with these points. If you like to defer that particular part until next time he shall be here then.

Colonel Spender-Clay.

[Continued.

"Rents" are put down at £7,000; whereas for 1922-23 they were £3,600. There is no explanation of the difference on page 128a. I think it is because we have to pay rent for some premises that we had under the Defence of the Realm Act. We now have to pay a full rent for them, but I will ascertain exactly how that is.

Mr. Penny.

1299. As regards the first, second and third-grade clerks, the numbers of those seem to be out of all proportion when you compare them with the numbers in 1914-15. Why do you want so many clerks? (Captain Norbury): The stocks that they have to look after have practically doubled since pre-war. Before the war they were under-staffed and could not really carry out their work. In addition to that, the new factory at Holton Heath has been added, and a new armament depot at Crombie, and another one at Bandeath, and three mines depots.

1300. Therefore you do not think that staff is excessive?-It is as much as we can do to get on with it.

1301. What do these stores comprise, that you have just mentioned?—All the armament stores are comprised in Vote 9.

1302. Are we still manufacturing stores and making even more work, so that we may have a larger staff than this next year?-I would not suggest that. It is a question of quality. Post-war we have had a lot of new entries of temporary clerks and various people, and the quality of the clerks is really inferior to what it was pre-war, partly because they have not had the experience.

1303. I see there are a large number of low-paid clerks employed in the place of a smaller number of better-paid; therefore that may be an explanation.-I would not necessarily say that was so. The coolie work, if I may so put it, has increased very much. The number of papers to be dealt with on the accounting of stores generally, and the issues receipts are greater, and very much more stringent precautions are taken as regards explosives, particularly cordite, which has nearly trebled that work as it used to be pre-war.

Chairman.

1304. You have some information to give which was asked for at our last meeting? (Sir Vincent Baddeley): There were two statements I was asked to hand in after the last day's discussion. One was the nature of the official entertaining done by Superintendents of dockyards abroad. I have a memorandum here if I may hand it in. (Handing in statement; see Appendix.)

Captain Viscount Curzon.] I raised the question on this in view of certain other questions which were asked. I think paragraph 3 of the paper you have handed in brings out the point I want the Committee to realise, namely, that these officers have a good deal of entertaining to do of an official character; hence the size of their staffs.

Chairman.

1305. Do the Admiralty consider that the servants provided at the public expense are not excessive for the work that has to be done?—Yes.

1306. Does that cover the cooks and stewards?-Yes.

Captain Viscount Curzon.

1307. Can the Committee have an assurance from you that in no case is the establishment of servants for Flag officers, Captains, and senior Officers ex

ceeded?-No; they only have the servants allowed by the Regulations.

1308. Are there any cases where the number borne does not quite come up to the establishment. Can you see any ways in which you could have economies at all in the retinues?-No, they all have the servants allowed. (Sir Charles Walker): A Vice-Admiral's retinue of servants was reduced to the retinue of a Rear Admiral, but that does not come on the establishment Vote; that is on Vote 1.

1309. When on shore as well as when afloat? There are no Vice-Admirals ashore except Commanders-in-Chief, who are senior Officers. The Admiralty did reduce the number of servants allowed to a Vice-Admiral afloat to the same number as for a Rear Admiral.

Mr. Charleton.

1310. The allowance for table money is, I take it, the gross amount allowed ?--(Sir Vincent Baddeley): Yes, the total amount.

Mr. Hannon.

1311. I should like it to be made perfectly clear that these allowances are partly for diplomatic and partly for Admiralty entertaining. For instance. the Rear-Admiral in charge at Gibraltar has to do a certain amount of diplomatic entertaining.-He has indeed; he is the only representative of the Navy there.

18 April, 1923.]

[Continued.

1312. 65s. a day is not an abnormal sum with which to provide him in order to do entertaining?-No.

1313. The same thing would apply to the Rear-Admiral in charge at Malta.-To ૧ less extent because there is Commander-in-Chief there.

a

1314. Nevertheless it would apply to an important extent?-Certainly.

1315. Because Malta is a place where representatives of foreign powers frequently go, and they have to be looked after in a proper way.-Yes.

1316. Therefore 50s. a day is not an excessive amount for Malta. Similarly at Hongkong, where all the subtleties of Oriental relationships have to be maintained, you do not think 40s. a day is too much.--No, the Admiralty are inclined to think it is too little.

1317. On the whole are these allowances in the view of the Admiralty cut down to the absolute minimum?-That is so.

Colonel Stephenson.

131. What was the date that the reduction of retinues which you have mentioned took place? (Sir Charles Walker): About a year ago.

1319. Your memorandum says:- "When the Superintendent is a Flag Officer he is Sometimes allowed a Flag Lieutenant on his staff, but he is not required by the King's Regulations to provide for his messing at his own table.' What are the regulations as regards the rank of Superintendents, because manifestly it costs more to have an officer of higher rank in that position than to have an officer of lower rank, especially if in certain circumstances he is allowed a flaglieutenant?-Rear-Admiral is the rank of a superintendent of a yard. It occasionally happens that in the course of the tenure of his appointment he reaches the rank of Vice-Admiral; and, if that is the case, he is not kept on for the full three years, as a rule.

1320. But it is always an officer of flag rank? For the large yards, yes. The Superintendents at Sheerness, at Pembroke, at Hong Kong, and Bermuda are captains.

1321. Are there any instances where a billet can be filled by an officer of lower rank which is, for the purpose of con

venience, filled by an officer of a higher rank at a higher rate of pay?-No instance of that.

1322. I thought according to answers given last time that rather appeared to be the case? I may say, to relieve your mind, that in these establishment Votes the Treasury come into the question and we should have to get their sanction, which would be very difficult, if we wished to fill a lower post by the appointment of a higher officer.

Mr. Hannon.

1323. How do the Admiralty arrive at the allowance of five shillings a day to the captain in charge at Bermuda? That seems a very small sum to allow him for entertainment allowance? That is the ordinary allowance for an officer of that rank. It is a small allowance.

1324. What in the world can a man do for five shillings a day in entertainment? -It is only a part of the year when he is the only officer there. There is a Commander-in-Chief at other times.

Chairman.

1325. Have you any other paper to hand in? Have you any other information to give the Committee? (Sir Vincent Baddeley): The other point about which the Committee asked me to supply information was as to the cost of the two new battleships, for which I had not the figures available last time. The approximate total cost of the two ships together is £14,000,000.

Captain Viscount Curzon,

1326. Does that sum include stores?— That includes the whole of the ammunition and torpedoes and director firing gear.

1327. Is that one year's outfit of ammunition?-Yes, the first outfit. 1328. And stores?-No, not naval stores. 1329. The total cost so far as can be ascertained is £7,000,000 a piece? Yes. Chairman.] I do not think it is possible for this Committee to go into details with regard to these battleships. First of all, it is not in our province, and secondly, we have not the data nor the expert knowledge necessary to deal with the cost. The point was raised last time more as a matter of interest than as a matter we can go into.

Chairman.

1331. The chief item which strikes me in this vote, which is not as important as the next one, is the question of War Charges. Under Sub-head C the War Charges are £15,000. War Charges also figure in other Sub-heads, namely K, N and Z.-(Sir Charles Walker): And in Sub-head X.

1332. Perhaps you can give us some explanation of these war charges?—Those are clearing up things that have happened in the war. Sub-head G war charges are for damage done during the war period by ships of the Navy knocking into colliers, and perhaps for collisions with other ships.

1333. They are matters which have not been cleared up yet?-No; some of these things are subject to arbitration.

Mr. Samuel.

1334. Is it under the Shipping Board? No. this comes under the Admiralty, entirely. Sub-head K "Gratuities for Special Services, etc.," includes rewards for inventions, which depend upon the awards of the Royal Commission for Inventions, and they have an enormous mass of work to get through and have not cleared it off yet. Sub-head N "Medals for Officers, Seamen, Marines, and Naval Reserves" you will understand is for war medals. Sub-head R "Rents. etc., of property unconnected with Naval Establishments " refers to rents of properties that have been taken in some cases under "D.O.R.A. for Naval purposes. Sub-head TT "Prize Bounty and similar awards " is a token vote of £1,100, and there may or may not be any claims coming in. Sub-head X "Hire, etc., of auxiliary vessels for service with the Fleet" is a sum put in in case the Board of Trade Marine Department have any further charges, or rather, charges that have not yet been made against us.

Mr. Hannon.

1335. Is the £10,000 in Sub-head X a token vote?-It is hardly a token vote, because we know we shall have to pay something, but it is just a round sum. The Mercantile Marine Department of the Board of Trade have not finished their liquidation work yet.

can

Chairman.

1336. I see under Sub-head M " Lighthouses, lightships, etc.," you have increased the vote by £1,000, but there is no explanation of that increase that I see, except that you say it is a "small increase in anticipated requirements -I am afraid I have not got the reason for that. It may be there are some more lights for which we have to pay. I can find out if you wish.

1337. It is not a large sum, but an increase of £1,000 coming in many votes makes a good deal of difference. Can Mr. Naef tell us anything about it?-I had better find that out and let you know.

1338. Sub-head O is "Percentage to banks, loss by exchange, etc." I presume there is sometimes a gain by exchange? Why should it necessarily be a net loss? --The net gain, as a rule, the Treasury gets the benefit of, because abroad the Treasury Chest raises money for us, and it frequently happens-in fact, I might say it generally happens-we show a loss by exchange while the Treasury Chest show a considerable gain.