4.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that, although thirty-eight skilled labourers at Bull Point have been granted the maximum pay of 28s. during the last seven years, they were all placed on the progressive list previous to that period, and that during these last seven years no skilled labourer has been placed on the progressive list; whether he can explain this; and whether he is aware that, in consequence of this action, an ordinary labourer with twelve months' service is eligible to receive 1s. a week more than a skilled labourer with thirteen or fourteen years' service?
The statement made in the first part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question is correct, and the reasons why no skilled labourers have been placed on the progressive scale of pay during the last seven years are, in the first place, that from 1904 onward, reductions in the number of men employed in naval ordnance depots generally were being effected, and in the second, that from the 17th February, 1910, a system of working to the mean of the scale of pay was substituted for the previous method of a progressive scale. Since that date fifty-seven men have been advanced to the skilled grade. All skilled labourers on the minimum of the scale received an advance in pay of 1s. per week from the 1st August last. I have already explained in previous answers to the hon. and gallant Member how it arises that labourers in certain cases receive more than skilled men on the minimum of the scale.
Is it not the fact that the result of the action taken is that unskilled labourers are now able to get a shilling a week more than skilled labourers?
I have explained before that the flat rate for unskilled labourers is 22s., but people doing responsible work may for a short time get 1s. or 2s. a week more for that work, and therefore in some cases they would get 24s. The minimum for a skilled labourer is 23s. Therefore in that case the unskilled labourer is getting more than the skilled labourer for the time being, but the skilled labourer can go up to 28., and in special cases to 31s.
Is it not a fact that practically anybody can do the work which is performed by the unskilled labourer at the rates referred to, whereas it takes a skilled man to do the other work?
No. For the time being the unskilled labourer is doing responsible work.
Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that it is the policy of the Government to put unskilled labourers to do skilled work?
No. The labourers who were doing the special work for this short time are, in many cases, men who will be promoted to the rank of skilled labourers.